Samsung Seeks Dismissal of Dua Lipa's $15M Lawsuit Over Image Trademark

Samsung moves to dismiss Dua Lipa’s $15M lawsuit, arguing she holds no trademark in her own image

September 15, 2026 By Mandy Dalugdug

Samsung has asked a federal judge to throw out Dua Lipa ’s lawsuit over the use of her photograph on television packaging.

Continue to article...

Lawyers for Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and its South Korean parent, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. , filed a motion to dismiss on Thursday (September 10) in the US District Court for the Central District of California.

The brief, which you can read here , sets out four grounds. The first is that Lipa cannot sue for trademark infringement over a picture of her own face.

Lipa sued Samsung on May 8 , seeking at least USD $15 million in damages over an image she owns that was printed on the cardboard boxes of TVs sold across the US.

The photo, registered with the US Copyright Office as No. VA 2-479-685 , is titled “Dua Lipa – Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024.”

She says she became aware of the use in June 2025 and immediately demanded that Samsung stop.

Her complaint describes the company’s response as “dismissive and callous,” and alleges that “a significant portion” of the televisions Samsung sold in the US in 2025 and since have carried her image.

It runs to eight causes of action.

Samsung ’s first argument targets three counts: trademark infringement and false endorsement under the Lanham Act , common law trademark infringement, and contributory trademark infringement.

“Plaintiff does not, and cannot, hold a trademark in her own image or likeness,” the Samsung filing states.

> “Plaintiff does not, and cannot, hold a trademark in her own image or likeness.” Samsung Electronics

It cites rulings involving Tiger Woods , Babe Ruth , and Bob Marley , in which courts found that a famous person’s likeness does not work as a source identifier for goods – the badge that tells a buyer where a product comes from.

Quoting a 2010 decision in a case brought by Marley ’s estate, the brief says: “Every court to consider the issue has held there is no cognizable trademark in every single photograph ever taken of a famous person.”

Samsung acknowledges one exception: a single photograph can work as a trademark where it, and it alone, “consistently is used as a source indicator.”

Its argument is that Lipa has not pleaded that. A footnote acknowledges that some courts credit celebrities with a “trademark-like interest” in their identity sufficient to support a false endorsement claim.

Lipa ’s complaint asserts that she “holds valid and protectable trademark rights in her brand, image, and likeness.”

The same section of Samsung ’s brief argues that the packaging suggests no endorsement.

The photo appears inside a rendering of the television’s home screen, as the backdrop to a Samsung TV Plus music video channel called XITE HITS , with icons below it for ABC News Live , Fox Sports , The First 48 by A&E , and MLB .

“An interface depicting a music-video channel among several unrelated content icons conveys nothing suggesting Plaintiff endorses the televisions,” the Samsung brief argues. “The images merely depict the televisions’ on-screen interface, illustrating the applications and content available on the device.”

Lipa ’s complaint cited fan posts to argue the packaging sold televisions, among them: “if you need anything selling just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it.”

> “The images merely depict the televisions’ on-screen interface, illustrating the applications and content available on the device.” Samsung Electronics

Samsung says such posts read as “familiar, tongue-in-cheek social media hyperbole… not sincere assertions that anyone believed Ms. Lipa had approved of, or partnered with, Samsung.”

The company had already blamed an unnamed content partner for the image in May , saying it had “explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes.”

Samsung ’s second argument targets two counts brought against the Korean parent alone: vicarious copyright infringement and vicarious trademark infringement.

Both require the parent to have controlled the infringement, and the filing argues that Lipa has pleaded nothing beyond an ordinary parent-subsidiary relationship.

Its lead authority is In re Google Generative AI Copyright Litigation , a 2025 ruling out of the Northern District of California.

There, Google ’s parent Alphabet faced a vicarious copyright claim. The court found the allegations insufficient, holding that a parent cannot be liable “solely by virtue of the ordinary control that any parent company may exercise over its subsidiary.”

“Plaintiff’s allegations against SEC are far thinner than those found wanting in In re Google , and fail for the same reason,” Samsung ’s brief states.

The third argument turns on where Lipa is domiciled – the country the law treats as her permanent home.

Two of her eight counts are right of publicity claims brought under California law – one statutory, one at common law.

Samsung takes two routes to the same destination.

The first treats the right of publicity as property, which under California ’s Civil Code “is deemed to follow the person of its owner, and is governed by the law of his domicile.”

The second applies the state’s governmental interest test, a weighing of which jurisdiction’s law would be more impaired if the other’s were applied. The court “need not resolve which framework governs, because both independently require the same result,” the Samsung filing argues.

Its lead authority on the first route is Cairns v. Franklin Mint , in which Princess Diana ’s estate sued a US memorabilia supplier over goods bearing her likeness.

The Ninth Circuit ruled in 2002 that the claim failed because the law of Diana’s domicile, Great Britain, governed – and does not recognize a post-mortem right of publicity.

That was so, Samsung ’s brief notes, “notwithstanding that the challenged conduct occurred in California.”

Cairns concerned a claim brought after Diana’s death, under a different California statute. The brief argues its reasoning rests on the property character of the right, and that courts have since applied the same rule to living plaintiffs.

Lipa ’s complaint states only that she is “an individual residing outside of the United States,” without naming a country.

Samsung ’s lawyers say her own pleading answers the question.

They point to her claims that Future Nostalgia was the number one album in the UK, that Radical Optimism debuted at number one on the UK Albums Chart , that she has won seven Brit Awards , and that she has appeared on the cover of British GQ .

“These are the specific national and cultural touchstones Plaintiff chose to plead to establish the value of the identity she alleges Defendants misappropriated,” the Samsung brief says.

On that basis, it argues, “the only plausible conclusion the Court can draw… is that Plaintiff is domiciled in the United Kingdom.” The complaint, it adds, “alleges no comparable connection between Plaintiff and California .”

And English law, the filing says, offers Lipa nothing: “England does not recognize a right of publicity, whether statutory or at common law.”

Samsung ’s fourth argument is procedural: “the entire Complaint represents an impermissible ‘shotgun’ pleading” – one that runs claims and defendants together so that neither side can tell who is accused of what.

It “frequently fails to distinguish between the alleged conduct of Defendants SEC and SEA, leaving each entity’s alleged conduct unidentified,” the filing says, using its shorthand for the two Samsung entities.

Samsung does not challenge the substance of Lipa ’s direct copyright infringement count, arguing instead that it fails because the complaint does not identify which entity reproduced or distributed the image.

“For the foregoing reasons, Defendants respectfully request that the Court dismiss the Complaint in its entirety,” the Samsung brief concludes.

The motion is scheduled to be heard on December 14 before Judge Christina A. Snyder . Music Business Worldwide

News United States United Kingdom South Korea Dua Lipa lawsuits Samsung Samsung Electronics Samsung Electronics America

Related Posts

AEG and SeatGeek ask court to reject Live Nation’s DOJ settlement, with AEG warning it ‘does not break Ticketmaster’s grip; it tightens it’

_Originally reported by [Music Business Worldwide](https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/samsung-moves-to-dismiss-dua-lipas-15m-lawsuit-arguing-she-holds-no-trademark-in-her-own-image/)._