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

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Kingsley Napley—Claire Green

Firm announces appointment of chief legal officer

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Weightmans—Emma Eccles & Mark Woodall

Firm bolsters Manchester insurance practice with double partner appointment

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Gilson Gray—Linda Pope

Partner joins family law team inLondon

NEWS
The landmark Supreme Court’s decision in Johnson v FirstRand Bank Ltd—along with Rukhadze v Recovery Partners—redefine fiduciary duties in commercial fraud. Writing in NLJ this week, Mary Young of Kingsley Napley analyses the implications of the rulings
Barristers Ben Keith of 5 St Andrew’s Hill and Rhys Davies of Temple Garden Chambers use the arrest of Simon Leviev—the so-called Tinder Swindler—to explore the realities of Interpol red notices, in this week's NLJ
Mazur v Charles Russell Speechlys [2025] has upended assumptions about who may conduct litigation, warn Kevin Latham and Fraser Barnstaple of Kings Chambers in this week's NLJ. But is it as catastrophic as first feared?
Lord Sales has been appointed to become the Deputy President of the Supreme Court after Lord Hodge retires at the end of the year
Limited liability partnerships (LLPs) are reportedly in the firing line in Chancellor Rachel Reeves upcoming Autumn budget
back-to-top-scroll