Photo Credit: Dua Lipa by Harald Krichel / CC by 4.0
After Samsung’s attempt to dismiss Dua Lipa’s $15 million lawsuit over the use of her image on the company’s television packaging, the pop star and her legal team are fighting back. Their latest filing argues that Samsung exploited her likeness without permission or compensation and falsely suggested she endorsed its products.
More specifically, Samsung treaded on terrain that is becoming increasingly interesting to IP owners and investors: Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) rights. In the case of Dua Lipa and others, properly locking down NIL rights could dramatically expand the valuation of the singer’s IP and related investments.
The singer’s attorneys said that the case is “straightforward,” arguing that Samsung used her image on a commercial product without her consent. The filing rejects the company’s claim that the packaging was unlikely to cause consumer confusion as to whether Lipa had endorsed its televisions.
Samsung has argued that consumers would not mistake the inclusion of her likeness for a branding deal but simply something that could be viewed on their TVs. Moreover, the company claimed that a third-party content provider had explicitly informed Samsung that it had secured permission, including for use on retail packaging. The company denies intentionally misusing the pop star’s image and has maintained that the picture was intended to demonstrate content available through streaming services.
Last month, the company filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that a celebrity’s face does not automatically imply endorsement or function as a trademark. But Lipa’s new filing asserts that she carefully controls the commercial use of her name and likeness, licensing them selectively through partnerships with major luxury brands. As a result, consumers familiar with her past endorsements could reasonably interpret her appearance on Samsung’s packaging as a paid endorsement.
The two sides also disagree over which country’s laws govern the star’s publicity claims. Samsung argues that because Lipa is English, English law should apply rather than California’s statutory protections. English law does not recognize the type of standalone publicity right that Lipa’s lawsuit seeks to enforce.
However, Lipa’s attorneys rejected that interpretation, arguing that California’s law governs the alleged commercial exploitation of her image on products marketed and sold in California and that English law would not necessarily leave her without a valid claim.
