Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (Rihanna)
The sale of a T shirt with a photograph of the singer Rihanna, without her consent, was passing off, because many customers would think that she had endorsed it.
Facts
Topshop, a clothing retailer owned by Arcadia, sold a T shirt with a photograph of the singer Rihanna, taken by an independent photographer, who had licensed it to Topshop. Rihanna had not consented to the use of her image. She had previously collaborated with Topshop, and had a substantial merchandising business. She sued for passing off.
Legal principle
The Court of Appeal upheld the finding of passing off. Kitchin LJ said that there is no image right in English law, and that the mere sale of a garment with an image of a famous person on it is not passing off. But, on the particular facts, a substantial number of purchasers would be likely to buy the T shirt because of a false belief that it had been authorised by Rihanna, because of her previous connection with Topshop, the use of a photograph from a video shoot that resembled the publicity for her album, and the fact that her fans would think she had approved it. This was damaging to her goodwill.
Related cases on passing off
- AG Spalding & Bros v AW Gamage Ltd (1915) 32 RPC 273
- British Telecommunications plc v One in a Million Ltd [1999] 1 WLR 903
- Cadbury Schweppes Pty Ltd v Pub Squash Co Pty Ltd [1981] 1 WLR 193
- Chocosuisse Union des Fabricants Suisses de Chocolat v Cadbury Ltd [1999] RPC 826
- Diageo North America Inc v Intercontinental Brands (ICB) Ltd (Vodkat) [2010] EWCA Civ 920, [2011] 1 All ER 242
- Erven Warnink BV v J Townend & Sons (Hull) Ltd (Advocaat) [1979] AC 731
- Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd [1996] RPC 697
- Hodgkinson & Corby Ltd v Wards Mobility Services Ltd [1994] 1 WLR 1564
Studying intellectual property law? Our tutors help you understand and apply cases like this in essays, problem questions and exams. Request a quote or browse our law notes.
This summary is for study and revision and is not legal advice. Although our case summaries are checked for accuracy, we do not guarantee that they are free from errors or omissions. Always read the full judgment for the court's reasoning.
