Robyn Rihanna Fenty and Others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Lord Justice Kitchin,Lord Justice Underhill,Lord Justice Richards |
| Judgment Date | 22 January 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWCA Civ 3 |
| Docket Number | Case No: A3/2013/2087 & A3/2013/2955 |
| Court | Court of Appeal (Civil Division) |
| Date | 22 January 2015 |
[2015] EWCA Civ 3
Lord Justice Richards
Lord Justice Kitchin
and
Lord Justice Underhill
Case No: A3/2013/2087 & A3/2013/2955
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION)
ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
CHANCERY DIVISION
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
The Hon Mr Justice Birss
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
Martin Howe QC and Andrew Norris (instructed by Reed Smith) for the Claimants/Respondents
Geoffrey Hobbs QC and Hugo Cuddigan (instructed by Mishcon de Reya) for the Defendants/Appellants
Hearing dates: 18/19 November 2014
Introduction
These proceedings concern a complaint by Rihanna, the world famous pop star, about the sale of fashion garments bearing her image.
The appellants (collectively "Topshop") own and operate the well known Topshop retail fashion stores. In 2012 Topshop began to sell in its stores and through its website a fashion t-shirt displaying a clearly recognisable image of Rihanna. The image was derived from a photograph of Rihanna which was taken when she was on a video shoot for a single from her "Talk That Talk" album. Rihanna is looking directly at the camera with her hair tied above her head with a headscarf. It is, as the judge thought, a striking image and similar images had been used by Rihanna in connection with the Talk That Talk album. This particular photograph was, however, taken by an independent third party photographer. He, as owner of the copyright in the photograph, licensed the use of the image to Topshop.
Rihanna (and two of her corporate licensing vehicles) thereupon issued these proceedings and alleged that, whatever may have been the position in relation to the copyright in the photograph, the use of her image in relation to fashion clothing was not licensed and that a substantial number of people buying the t-shirt would think that she had endorsed it when, in fact, it was not connected with her at all. Rihanna contended that Topshop's activities therefore amounted to passing off.
Topshop responded that Rihanna had not asserted that this particular image or any features of it had become distinctive of her or her clothing and that she was, by these proceedings, claiming an image right, that is to say a right to control the licensing of her name and likeness, and that no such right is recognised in English law.
The judge accepted that the mere sale by a trader of a t-shirt bearing an image of a famous person does not, in and of itself, amount to passing off. But he found the sale by Topshop of this t-shirt was, in the particular circumstances of this case, likely to lead people to buy it in the belief that it was a t-shirt which Rihanna had approved or authorised, and that this had caused her damage. He found that Topshop's activities therefore amounted to passing off and he granted an injunction prohibiting Topshop from dealing in it any further without clearly informing prospective purchasers that it had not been so approved or authorised. It is against that decision and order that Topshop now appeals.
Background
Rihanna is one of the most popular recording artists in the world. In the seven years prior to the commencement of proceedings she sold around 30 million albums and 120 million singles. She performed songs she had recorded in five major tours and won over 200 awards, including five prestigious Grammy awards.
Rihanna also runs very large merchandising and endorsement businesses and over the years has had endorsement agreements with Nike, Gillette, Clinique and LG Mobile. The merchandising business was originally managed by a company known as Bravado and in 2010 and 2011 goods authorised by Rihanna and sourced through Bravado were available in Topman stores which are owned and operated by companies within the group of which Topshop forms a part. Since 2012 this business has been managed by another company called Live Nation which expects to earn significant sums from the sale of conventional merchandise associated with her.
Rihanna's agreement with Bravado did not extend to fashion garments. However, Rihanna has also been very active in this sphere and has made considerable efforts to promote an association in the public mind between herself and the world of fashion, as the judge explained at [41]:
"…She promoted H&M's Fashion Against Aids clothing collection in January 2008, which involved her designing her own t-shirt, which was publicised as part of that exercise. In June 2008 through Combermere she entered into an agreement with Gucci in which she promoted Gucci goods including clothing, accessories and jewellery. She exercised control over which garments she would wear. In June 2011 she entered into an agreement with Armani relating to a women's wear collection for Autumn/Winter 2011 and Spring/Summer 2012. The Armani collaboration produced two capsule collections. Capsules are groups of garments produced by one designer which can be worn together in different combinations. One collection involved two styles of jeans, a leather biker jacket, a canvas bag and two t-shirts, one emblazoned with an image of Rihanna. The other had a similar collection of garments, with four t-shirts."
Much of the clothing authorised and endorsed by Rihanna bears a particular and distinctive logo referred to in the proceedings as the "R slash" logo. It looks like this:
The R slash logo and the name "Rihanna" are used extensively on authorised goods, often together but sometimes separately. However, other authorised goods do not bear either of these marks, or at least not in a position such that they are likely to come to the attention of potential customers.
Overall, the judge found that by 2012 Rihanna was regarded as a style icon by many people, particularly young women aged between 13 and 30. He considered that such people are interested in what they perceive to be Rihanna's views about fashion. If they see Rihanna wearing or approving an item of clothing then they think it has been endorsed by her. In all these circumstances the judge found that Rihanna and her associated companies had acquired a significant goodwill in relation to fashion clothing. He put it this way:
"46. The claimants have and had in 2012 ample goodwill to succeed in a passing off action of this kind. Furthermore in 2012 the fact that an item of clothing was a more design led fashion garment, rather than a lower quality simple plain t-shirt, would not be understood to rule out, in the mind of a purchaser, the idea that it was a Rihanna endorsed product or an item of authorised Rihanna merchandise. The scope of her goodwill was not only as a music artist but also in the world of fashion, as a style leader."
Topshop is a fashion retailer with a worldwide reputation. It aims to market affordable fashion garments and support British fashion by using its public profile and popularity to raise awareness of up and coming British design talent. It has been described by one designer as signifying youth and modernity and evoking cool London. Over the years it has sold garments which bear images of famous persons, some of which have been authorised, and some of which have not. It sold the t-shirt in issue from about 6 March until 13 August 2012. About 12,000 units were sold in total. It was retailed at a price of £22.00 until near the end of its run and the comments received from customers were generally positive. Initially the t-shirt was described on-line as "RIHANNA TANK" and "Photographic Rihanna motif tank". However, by 14 March, all reference to Rihanna had been removed, perhaps because Rihanna is a registered trade mark for clothing.
The judgment
The judge set out the background and then turned to what he considered to be the heart of the case, namely whether or not the activities of Topshop amounted to a misrepresentation. He explained that Rihanna's case was that the presence of her image on the t-shirt in the circumstances of this case amounted to a misrepresentation which was likely to mislead potential customers. She relied upon the particular image, the way it was presented and the nature of the t-shirt itself, together with the position of Topshop as a major and reputable high street retailer. All of these circumstances created a real likelihood that a substantial number of persons would be deceived into thinking that the t-shirt was an authorised product and would, as a result, buy it.
Topshop did not dispute that Rihanna was a celebrity. It also accepted that she would be recognised as the subject of the image on the t-shirt. It contended that the t-shirt was plainly an item of fashion wear, not a piece of promotional merchandise and that consumers bought it because they liked the product and the image for their own qualities. Nothing on the swing tag or other labelling of the t-shirt made any suggestion that it had been authorised by Rihanna and so it had done nothing which could be said to amount to passing off.
In assessing these submissions the judge accepted at the outset that there was no evidence before him of any actual confusion. This was, he considered, relevant but not determinative. He then turned to the more general circumstances. In this regard he recognised that consumers were well aware of the merchandising and endorsement activities of music artists but observed that this did not mean that consumers always wanted to buy...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Mohammad Hafiz Hamidun v Kamdar Sdn Bhd
-
Karen Denise Millen v Karen Millen Fashions Ltd and Another
...expert evidence for which permission had not been given. I was referred to the decisions of the Court of Appeal and of Birss J in Fenty v. Arcadia Group Ltd. [2015] EWCA Civ 3 and [2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch), in the course of oral submissions on the first day of trial. 24 The Defendants responde......
-
Shazam Productions Ltd v Only Fools the Dining Experience Ltd
...merchandising, as long as the specific type of misrepresentation that is relevant to those cases is borne in mind: see Fenty v Arcadia [2015] EWCA Civ 3 at [39], following Laddie J in [46] of Irvine v Talksport [2002] EWHC 367 (Ch). f. Proof of actual damage is not required. 199 To these ......
-
Easygroup Ltd v Easy Live (Services) Ltd
...to find that GPEA was beginning to lose potential licensees to the defendant. 44 The third case is Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 3, [2015] 1 WLR 3291. In that case the claimant was the pop star Rihanna, who had a substantial licensing and merchandising business. The def......
-
"It's My Name!" ' Federal Court Upholds Celebrity's Right To Sue For Passing Off For Use Of His Name
...and another v Radio Corporation Pty Ltd [1969] RPC 218 and Fenty and others v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (trading as Topshop) and another [2015] 1 WLR 3291 involving the likes of formula one driver Edmund Irvine Jr, ballroom dancers Mr and Mrs Henderson, and R&B singer Rihanna. The apex court......
-
Protection Of Celebrity Images In The U.K. Rihanna Decision Affirmed By Court Of Appeal
...& Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Limited (t/a Topshop) ([2013] EWHC 2310 (Ch), aff'd, [2015] EWCA Civ 3 We refer to our December 2013 Information Letter report on the decision by the UK High Court finding Topshop liable for passing off for engaging in unauthorized sale of T-shirts bearing a......
-
Rihanna Publicity Case Shows Differences In UK Law
...very recent English Court of Appeal decision shows the distinct approach of English courts to publicity rights (Fenty v. Topshop [2015] EWCA Civ 3). In 2012, the fashion retailer Topshop began selling in its UK stores and through its website a fashion t-shirt showing a clearly recognizable ......
-
Head-Swapped Photographs & Copyright: A New Zealand Perspective
...uses of their photos, either due to legal ignorance or due to a lack of bargaining power. 15 See Fenty v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd [2015] EWCA Civ 3 (22 January 2015) [29] (“There is in English law no ‘image right’ or ‘character right’ which allows a celebrity to control the use of his or he......