Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) refer to the legal protection granted to intellectual creations, including patents, designs, trademarks, and copyrights. These rights are awarded to individuals or businesses responsible for creating these intellectual properties. IPR laws aim to safeguard the rights of creators, allowing them control over who can use their intellectual property and enabling them to generate income from it.
In the case of Rihanna v. Topshop, the plaintiff raised concerns related to passing off, as there were no specific laws protecting the use of public figures’ images in the UK. This study examines how Justice Birss approached the case and what led to his conclusion that the plaintiff had a legitimate claim against Topshop. It also explores the potential for an appeal and its merits.
Rihanna, a renowned pop star and fashion icon, sued Topshop for using her image on t-shirts without her permission. The defendant had obtained the image from an independent photographer who had initially taken the photo with the plaintiff’s consent during a video shoot. Rihanna’s claim was based on the unauthorized use of her image, constituting an infringement of her rights.
To establish her claim, the plaintiff had to prove that she possessed public goodwill, that the defendant’s actions involved misrepresentation, and that she had suffered losses due to these actions, following the precedent set by the case Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873. While UK law does not provide direct protection for public figures’ images, it does offer safeguards for the distribution of specific photographs held privately.
The court found that the defendant’s conduct amounted to misrepresentation. Despite not using an authorization label or tag on the merchandise, the defendant’s attempts to link the plaintiff to their products created a strong conviction among customers that they had permission to use her image. The court also noted that the plaintiff’s image was a financial asset, and unauthorized use could negatively impact her career.
The court ruled that the use of the plaintiff’s image without permission had influenced the defendant’s sales, and the resulting deception had damaged the plaintiff’s goodwill. The defendant was ordered to pay legal fees and prohibited from further distributing merchandise featuring the plaintiff’s image.
Regarding the appeal, the appellate should argue that the use of the plaintiff’s image did not harm her reputation or contribute significantly to the defendant’s sales. They must demonstrate that their actions were not deceptive and that they acted in good faith. Ultimately, the success of the appeal will depend on their ability to prove that the plaintiff’s claims were not substantiated.
Bibliography
Blakeney, Michael. Intellectual Property Enforcement: A Commentary on the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA). (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2012)394
Caddick Nicholas and Longstaff Ben . A Users Guide to Trade Marks and Passing Off. (Bloomsbury Publishing, 2012) 474
Carty Hazel. An Analysis of the Economic Torts. (Oxford University Press, 2010) 333
Colston Catherine and Galloway Jonathan. Modern Intellectual Property Law. (New York: Routledge, 2010) 896
Davies Colin and Cheng Tania. Intellectual Property Law in the United Kingdom. (UK: Kluwer Law International, 2011)292
De Lacy John Reform of UK Company Law. (Routledge, 2013) 550
De Vrey Rogier W. Towards a Euroapean Unfair Competition Law: A Clash Between Legal Families: a Comparative Study of English, German and Dutch Law in Light of Existing European and International Legal Instruments. (BRILL, 2006) 80.
Douglas v Hello (2007) UKHL 21, Dutfield Graham and Suthersanen Uma Global Intellectual Property Law. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2008) 384.
Harrods Ltd v Harrodian School Ltd. ([1996] RPC 697 Irvine v Talksport [2002] FSR 60 Kenyon Andrew T., Ng-Loy Wee Loon, Richardson Megan. The Law of Reputation and Brands in the Asia Pacific. (Cambridge University Press, 2012) 279.
Lambert Miss Jane. Enforcing Intellectual Property Rights: A Concise Guide for Businesses, Innovative and Creative Individuals. (England: Gower Publishing, Ltd., 2012)192
Lee Nari., Westkamp Guido, Kur, Annette, and Ohly Ansgar. Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Publicity: Convergences and Development. (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2014) 384.
Marson James. Business Law Concentrate: Law Revision and Study Guide. (Oxford University Press, 2013) 224
Mirage Studios v Counterfeit Clothing (the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles case) [1991] FSR 145 Reckitt & Colman Ltd v Borden Inc [1990] 1 All E.R. 873
Norman Helen. Intellectual Property Law Directions. (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011)505
Olwan Rami M. Intellectual Property and Development: Theory and Practice. (Springer, 2013) 12
Patry William. How to Fix Copyright. (Oxford University Press, 2011)323
Phillips Jeremy. Trade Marks at the Limit. (UK: Edward Elgar Publishing, 2006)320
Robyn Rihanna Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (t/a Topshop) and another [2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch) Routledge. Intellectual Property Lawcards 2012-2013. (Routledge, 2013) 192
Torremans Paul Copyright Law: A Handbook of Contemporary Research. (Edward Elgar Publishing, 2009) 552
Wadlow Christopher .The Law of Passing-off: Unfair Competition by Misrepresentation. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2011) 952
Waelde Charlotte , Laurie Graeme , Brown Abbe , Kheria Smita, Cornwell Jane. Contemporary Intellectual Property: Law and Policy. (Britain: Oxford University Press, 2013)1025.
Yu Peter K. Intellectual Property and Information Wealth: Trademark and unfair competition. (Greenwood Publishing Group, 2007) 452