One area into which it has developed is to provide protection against false endorsement. In , Talksport radio was found liable for passing-off when it doctored an image of F1 driver Eddie Irvine to show him holding a Talksport-branded radio, and used that image in advertising.
Rihanna was held to have goodwill in her image. Damage to that goodwill would include a lost licensing opportunity for the t-shirts. It had made a considerable effort to emphasise a connection between the business and Rihanna. Topshop ran a competition for a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna. It tweeted when Rihanna visited its flagship store. It made other statements on social media.
So taking everything into account, the judge felt that a substantial portion of those considering buying the product — namely, Rihanna fans — would think that the garment was authorised. Passing-off was therefore established. As this is an issue that has to be primarily decided on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Court looked at the image on the T-shirts in question. The Court stated that it was extremely likely that this image would be understood by her fans as a part of the marketing campaign for her music release.
In both these instances, the consumers would have been deceived and the second prong under the claim of passing off is satisfied. However, the Court warned that the mere sale by a trader of a garment with the image of a famous person would not by itself amount to passing off.
In the instant case, it amounted to passing off because of the specific facts and circumstances therein. Tags: Passing Off , UK. Fun, K.! I have a friend who has made her own jewellery with a 3D printer. All that said, I still prefer the organic perfection of a hand-knitted sweater to a machine-knitted one, though I think the idea behind Knyttan is quite interesting.
You must be logged in to post a comment. T shirt printing programme Want to buy a Fabrickated. Taking the examples as a whole, Birss J did not accept that the existence of the various garments relied on was sufficient to have led customers or potential customers to believe that any garment bearing any image of Rihanna would necessarily be unauthorised by the artist. While customers would not think that any garment bearing an image of a famous person and on sale in Topshop would be authorised by that person, nevertheless Topshop was not a market stall.
It was a leading high street fashion retailer and purchasers would not be surprised to find goods on sale in Topshop which have been endorsed or approved by celebrities. In the past, Topshop had a very public collaboration with Kate Moss in which exactly that took place. Topshop and Rihanna. There were various instances in which Topshop had sought to emphasise the fact that Rihanna was wearing or thinking of wearing Topshop clothing, such as a shopping competition in , in which the winner won a personal shopping appointment with Rihanna at the flagship Oxford Circus store, or a tweet from the store regarding a visit by Rihanna in February The clothing retailer was recognising and seeking to take advantage of Rihanna's public position as a style icon.
The image on the t-shirt. Birss J noted that the image on the t-shirt was based on a photograph taken during the video shoot for Rihanna's single We Found Love from the Talk That Talk album. The video received a lot of press attention in the UK. The image was a striking one. The artist was looking directly at the viewer with her hair tied above her head with a headscarf.
The images for the Talk Talk album show Rihanna with the same hairstyle and headscarf. Birss J thought that the relationship between the image and the images of Rihanna for the album and the video shoot would be noticed by her fans. This was an important point. This image was not just recognisably Rihanna, it looked like a publicity shot for what was then a recent musical release, and to fans might be thought to be part of the marketing campaign for that project.
Conclusion The judge concluded that, to prospective purchasers, the nature of the image itself was a fairly strong indication that this may be an authorised product, an item approved by Rihanna herself. The fact it was a fashion garment and not a cheap simple merchandising blank did not act as a sign pointing against authorisation but nor was it a pointer in that direction.
The fact it was on sale in a high street retailer was neutral. However, the fact that the high street retailer was Topshop was not neutral. The public links between Topshop and famous stars in general, and more importantly the links to Rihanna in particular, would enhance the likelihood in the purchaser's mind that this garment has been authorised by her. The fact there was no indication of artist authorisation on the swing tag or neck label pointed firmly against authorisation, but Birss J said that, in his judgment, that was not strong enough to negate the impression the garment was authorised.
Although he accepted that a good number of purchasers would buy the t-shirt without giving the question of authorisation any thought at all, he said that, in his judgment, a substantial portion of those considering the product would be induced to think it was a garment authorised by the artist.
The persons who did this would be the Rihanna fans. They would recognise or think they recognised the particular image of Rihanna, not simply as a picture of the artist, but as a particular picture of her associated with a particular context, the recent Talk That Talk album. For those persons, the idea that it was authorised would be part of what motivated them to buy the product. The judge was quite satisfied that many fans of Rihanna regarded her endorsement as important.
She was their style icon. Many would buy a product because they think she has approved of it. Others would wish to buy it because of the value of the perceived authorisation itself. In both cases they would have been deceived.
0コメント