header-logo header-logo

RiRi image was "passing off"

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

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

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Muckle LLP—Ella Johnson

Real estate dispute resolution team welcomes newly qualified solicitor

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

Morr & Co—Dennis Phillips

International private client team appoints expert in Spanish law

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

NLJ Career Profile: Stefan Borson, McCarthy Denning

Stefan Borson, football finance expert head of sport at McCarthy Denning, discusses returning to the law digging into the stories behind the scenes

NEWS
Paper cyber-incident plans are useless once ransomware strikes, argues Jack Morris of Epiq in NLJ this week
In this week's NLJ, Robert Hargreaves and Lily Johnston of York St John University examine the Employment Rights Bill 2024–25, which abolishes the two-year qualifying period for unfair-dismissal claims
Writing in NLJ this week, Manvir Kaur Grewal of Corker Binning analyses the collapse of R v Óg Ó hAnnaidh, where a terrorism charge failed because prosecutors lacked statutory consent. The case, she argues, highlights how procedural safeguards—time limits, consent requirements and institutional checks—define lawful state power
Michael Zander KC, emeritus professor at LSE, revisits his long-forgotten Crown Court Study (1993), which surveyed 22,000 participants across 3,000 cases, in the first of a two-part series for NLJ
Getty Images v Stability AI Ltd [2025] EWHC 2863 (Ch) was a landmark test of how UK law applies to AI training—but does it leave key questions unanswered, asks Emma Kennaugh-Gallagher of Mewburn Ellis in NLJ this week
back-to-top-scroll