header-logo header-logo

27 January 2015
Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-detail

RiRi image was "passing off"

Court provides clarity over “image rights” as celebrity wins T-shirt battle

Celebrities cannot rely on “image rights” as no such right exists in English law, the Court of Appeal has held in a dispute between Topshop and Rihanna over t-shirts bearing her photograph.

Nevertheless, Umbrella singer Rihanna came out on top in a legal dispute with the fashion retailer over its use of her image without permission.

Lord Justice Kitchin and two Court of Appeal judges upheld the High Court’s finding that the use of a photograph of Rihanna on a T-shirt gave the impression that she had endorsed the product and therefore amounted to passing off, in Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands [2015] EWCA Civ 3.

The photograph was taken by an independent photographer who owned the copyright to the image and licensed the use of it to Topshop.

Topshop’s legal team argued that the public had no expectation that a piece of clothing decorated with an image had been authorised by the people in that image. Team Rihanna countered that the misrepresentation damaged her “goodwill”. The court granted an injunction against Topshop selling the T-shirts.

In its judgment, the court provides clarity on the existence of “image rights”.

Stephen Boyd, of Selborne Chambers, says: “Kitchin LJ, giving the lead judgment, reiterated the distinction between endorsement and merchandising and made clear that in English law there is no ‘image right’ or ‘character right’ which allows a celebrity to control the use of his or her name or image. Registered trade marks aside, no-one can claim monopoly rights in a word or a name. Accordingly, a celebrity seeking to control the use of his or her image must therefore rely upon some other cause of action such as breach of contract, breach of confidence, infringement of copyright or passing off.”

Kitchin LJ said passing off was about “goodwill”. This allegation did disclose a sustainable case in passing off. In substance, Rihanna alleged that she had suffered damage to the goodwill in her business as a result of the misrepresentation, implied in all the circumstances, that she had endorsed the T-shirt.”

Issue: 7638 / Categories: Legal News
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Hogan Lovells—Lisa Quelch

Partner hire strengthens global infrastructure and energy financing practice

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Sherrards—Jan Kunstyr

Legal director bolsters international expertise in dispute resolution team

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Muckle LLP—Stacey Brown

Corporate governance and company law specialist joins the team

NEWS

NOTICE UNDER THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925

HERBERT SMITH STAFF PENSION SCHEME (THE “SCHEME”)

NOTICE TO CREDITORS AND BENEFICIARIES UNDER SECTION 27 OF THE TRUSTEE ACT 1925
Law firm HFW is offering clients lawyers on call for dawn raids, sanctions issues and other regulatory emergencies
From gender-critical speech to notice periods and incapability dismissals, employment law continues to turn on fine distinctions. In his latest employment law brief for NLJ, Ian Smith of Norwich Law School reviews a cluster of recent decisions, led by Bailey v Stonewall, where the Court of Appeal clarified the limits of third-party liability under the Equality Act
Non-molestation orders are meant to be the frontline defence against domestic abuse, yet their enforcement often falls short. Writing in NLJ this week, Jeni Kavanagh, Jessica Mortimer and Oliver Kavanagh analyse why the criminalisation of breach has failed to deliver consistent protection
Assisted dying remains one of the most fraught fault lines in English law, where compassion and criminal liability sit uncomfortably close. Writing in NLJ this week, Julie Gowland and Barny Croft of Birketts examine how acts motivated by care—booking travel, completing paperwork, or offering emotional support—can still fall within the wide reach of the Suicide Act 1961
back-to-top-scroll