Samsung asks court to dismiss Dua Lipa’s $15 million trademark and image-rights lawsuit

Samsung is challenging Dua Lipa’s $15 million lawsuit over her image on television packaging, arguing that the use did not plausibly suggest celebrity endorsement and that her trademark and publicity claims are legally defective.

Samsung has asked a US federal court to dismiss Dua Lipa’s $15 million lawsuit over the alleged unauthorized use of her image on television packaging.

The motion, filed in the US District Court for the Central District of California, represents Samsung’s latest response to Lipa’s claims that the company used a copyrighted photograph of her to market its televisions without authorization.

Samsung is pursuing a multi-pronged challenge to the lawsuit, including arguments concerning trademark infringement, false endorsement, and publicity rights. The company argues that its use of the photograph did not plausibly suggest that Lipa was promoting or endorsing its products.

The dispute over the TV boxes

Lipa filed the lawsuit in May 2026, seeking at least $15 million in damages.

The case centers on a photograph of the singer taken backstage at the 2024 Austin City Limits Festival. According to the complaint, Samsung used the photograph on packaging for televisions sold in the US.

Lipa alleges that she owned the rights to the photograph and had not authorized Samsung to use her image in connection with the sale of its televisions. She brought claims including copyright infringement, trademark infringement, false endorsement, and violation of her publicity rights.

Lipa also alleges that she objected to Samsung’s use of the photograph after becoming aware of it and sought to have the company stop using the image.

The complaint reportedly includes social-media evidence in which consumers referred to the product as the “Dua Lipa TV Box,” with some comments indicating that her appearance on the packaging influenced their purchasing decisions. That evidence could be significant to Lipa’s argument that Samsung’s use created an impression of endorsement.

Samsung: the image did not imply endorsement

Samsung’s response takes a different view of what consumers would understand from the packaging.

The company argues that the image was used to illustrate content available through Samsung TV Plus and was presented as an example of material that could appear on the television screen. Samsung therefore maintains that the photograph was not being used as a conventional celebrity endorsement of the television.

The company argues that its use of Lipa’s image “does not plausibly suggest” that consumers would believe she was promoting the product. That distinction goes to the heart of Lipa’s trademark and false-endorsement claims.

The issue is not simply whether Lipa is famous or whether her photograph appeared on a product. The legal question includes whether Samsung’s use could create a misleading impression that Lipa sponsored, endorsed, or was commercially affiliated with the television. Samsung is challenging whether Lipa has adequately pleaded such an association and argues that the circumstances surrounding the photograph do not plausibly establish consumer confusion or endorsement. The court has not yet ruled on those arguments.

The third-party content issue

Samsung is also relying on the provenance of the photograph. The company says the image was supplied by a third-party content partner in connection with content used on Samsung’s television platform. According to Samsung, the content partner expressly assured the company that the necessary rights had been obtained, including rights covering use of the image on retail packaging.

That creates a separate issue from whether consumers believed Lipa endorsed Samsung.

Even if Samsung can establish that it relied on contractual assurances from its content partner, the question of whether those assurances are sufficient to defeat Lipa’s individual claims remains part of the litigation. The case could therefore raise an important practical question for brands: what level of rights clearance is required when third-party content moves from a digital content service onto physical product packaging?

Why the trademark issue matters

The dispute is particularly relevant to trademark practitioners because Lipa’s claims go beyond ownership of the photograph.

A copyright claim focuses on the reproduction of the underlying photograph. A false-endorsement claim asks a different question: whether the defendant’s use of a person’s identity creates a misleading impression of sponsorship, approval, or affiliation.

A celebrity does not necessarily have a registered trademark covering every photograph or depiction of their face. That does not mean, however, that their identity can automatically be used commercially without legal consequences. Trademark law can protect celebrity brands where the relevant requirements are satisfied, while false-endorsement claims under US law can address misleading suggestions of commercial association.

The Ninth Circuit has previously considered celebrity identity and endorsement issues in the context of Samsung itself. In White v. Samsung Electronics America, Vanna White successfully pursued claims arising from a Samsung advertisement that evoked her identity, although the facts and legal issues in that case were very different from the Lipa litigation.

The Lipa case therefore presents a more conventional question: can the use of an actual celebrity photograph on consumer-product packaging create a legally actionable impression of endorsement when the celebrity says no such relationship existed?

The UK comparison

The case also has a significant UK dimension.

English law does not recognize a freestanding “image right” or general right of publicity equivalent to the statutory publicity protections available in some US jurisdictions. Instead, celebrities generally have to rely on a combination of legal rights, depending on the circumstances. One important route is passing off.

The leading example is Fenty v. Arcadia Group Brands Ltd, involving Rihanna and Topshop. Rihanna succeeded after Topshop sold a T-shirt bearing an image of the singer without her authorization. The case demonstrated that unauthorized use of a celebrity image can amount to passing off where it creates a false impression of endorsement. Passing off requires the claimant to establish goodwill, a misrepresentation and resulting or likely damage.

That makes the consumer reaction alleged in Lipa’s US complaint particularly interesting from a UK perspective. Evidence that consumers actually believed a celebrity endorsed a product could potentially be relevant to the question of misleading commercial association. Copyright provides another potential route where the celebrity owns the copyright in the photograph. Trademark protection may also be available where a celebrity has registered appropriate marks covering relevant goods or services.

The key difference is that UK law does not provide celebrities with a single, general statutory right to control every commercial use of their image.

A wider lesson for brands

The Samsung dispute illustrates the increasingly complicated relationship between celebrity identity, copyright, trademarks, and commercial content. For brands, obtaining content from a third-party provider does not necessarily eliminate the need to understand how and where that content will be used.

Samsung says it received assurances that the necessary permissions had been obtained, including for packaging. Whether those assurances ultimately protect the company will depend on the claims and legal issues before the California court. For celebrities, meanwhile, the case highlights the different legal tools available to challenge unauthorized commercial associations.

The central issue remains whether Samsung’s use of Lipa’s photograph was simply an illustration of content available on its television platform, as Samsung argues, or whether placing that image prominently on consumer-product packaging could reasonably communicate that the singer endorsed the product.

That question now sits at the center of Samsung’s bid to have Lipa’s lawsuit dismissed.

← Back to News