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

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

NLJ Career Profile: John McElroy, London Solicitors Litigation Association

From first-generation student to trailblazing president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, John McElroy of Fieldfisher reflects on resilience, identity and the power of bringing your whole self to the law

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Clarke Willmott—Elaine Field

Planning and environment team expands with partner hire in Manchester

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Birketts—Barbara Hamilton-Bruce

Firm appoints chief operating officer to strengthen leadership team

NEWS
A landmark Supreme Court ruling has underscored the sweeping reach of UK sanctions. In NLJ this week, Brónagh Adams and Harriet Campbell of Penningtons Manches Cooper say the regime is a ‘blunt instrument’ requiring only a factual, not causal, link to restricted goods
Fraud claims are surging, with England and Wales increasingly the forum of choice for global disputes. Writing in NLJ this week, Jon Felce of Cooke, Young & Keidan reports claims have risen sharply, with fraud now a major share of litigation and costing billions worldwide
Litigators digesting Mazur are being urged to tighten oversight and compliance. In his latest 'Insider' column for NLJ this week, Professor Dominic Regan of City Law School provides a cut out and keep guide to the ruling’s core test: whether an unauthorised individual is ‘in truth acting on behalf of the authorised individual’
Conflicting county court rulings have left landlords uncertain over whether they can force entry after tenants refuse access. In this week's NLJ, Edward Blakeney and Ashpen Rajah of Falcon Chambers outline a split: some judges permit it under CPR 70.2A, others insist only Parliament can authorise such powers
A wave of scandals has reignited debate over misconduct in public office, criticised as unclear and inconsistently applied. Writing in NLJ this week, Alice Lepeuple of WilmerHale says the offence’s ‘vagueness, overbreadth & inconsistent deployment’ have undermined confidence
back-to-top-scroll