Luke Littler’s trademark move highlights growing concerns about AI deepfakes

Should the UK government legislate to protect “personality rights”? 

It’s a question that has vexed parliamentarians, famous people, and members of the public caught in the cross-hairs of the public eye for years. One of the conclusions in the government’s Report on Copyright and AI, published in March 2026, was to agree that the growing use of realistic impersonation through AI creates new risks for artists, sportspeople, and the general public, and proposed to explore the introduction of a new personality right.  

Accordingly, without a specific personality right, teenage darts sensation Luke “the Nuke” Littler has taken steps to protect his image by applying to register his face as a trademark. He has already registered “the nuke” as a trademark, but this only stops others from using the words “the nuke” and does nothing to prevent unauthorised AI-generated images and counterfeit merchandise featuring his face.

At just 19, Littler is already one of the most recognizable figures in the UK. With such recognition comes the potential to expand his brand appeal across a range of lucrative endorsements. In order to do this, he and his commercial partners need to have some form of exclusivity not just in his name, but also in his image.

The limitations of the current UK IP framework

A registered trademark needs to set out “the clear and precise subject matter of the protection,” and while protection can extend to stopping third parties from using similar signs, a trademark protecting an image of Luke Littler’s face does not create a general personality right. Moreover, even if his application succeeds, the scope of the trademark will be inherently limited. Trademark protection applies only in relation to specific classes of goods and services, meaning it cannot provide blanket protection against all unauthorised uses of a person’s likeness, particularly those generated and disseminated online through AI tools.

Past attempts to use trademarks to create an “image right” have had mixed success. Former Formula One driver Damon Hill successfully registered a trademark consisting of his eyes as seen through a racing helmet. By contrast, attempts by the estate of Diana, Princess of Wales, to register her image as a trademark were unsuccessful. Princess Diana’s fame was such that the trademark registrar did not accept that consumers could believe that all memorabilia bearing her likeness was exclusively under the control of a single undertaking.

Arsenal Football Club prevented the sale of unauthorized merchandise bearing Arsenal insignia and, in doing so, successfully argued, relevant to Littler, that a trademark is more than just a “badge of allegiance,” but it is a designation of merchandise that comes from an “official” Arsenal source.

Sports personalities and pop stars have been able to use their unregistered “passing off” rights to prevent their image being used on unauthorized merchandise and in advertising, but this right is limited to products and services where they can show they have commercial “goodwill.” Rihanna stopped the clothing retailer, Topshop, from selling t-shirts bearing her image, and another former F1 driver, Eddie Irvine, stopped the radio station, Talksport, from using his image to promote their programs. However, in both cases, the court stressed there is no English law that provides a general right to restrain the reproduction of their name or image. Thus, celebrities seeking to control the use of their image must rely on a patchwork of laws such as breach of contract, breach of confidence, infringement of copyright, or, as in these cases, passing off, none of which were designed with deepfakes in mind.

The challenge posed by AI

AI-generated content can replicate an individual’s appearance with increasing realism, often outside traditional commercial contexts and across multiple jurisdictions. Trademark law, with its territorial and class-based limitations, is not well equipped to address this type of misuse comprehensively.

As a result, even if successful, Littler’s application is likely to highlight rather than resolve the issue and prompt further discussion about how best to protect individuals in an era where their likeness can be replicated, manipulated, and monetized with unprecedented ease.

← Back to News