IP / Regulatory Law Watch Dua Lipa v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. Background
Grammy Award-winning British pop star Dua Lipa has filed a federal lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, seeking at least $15 million in damages. The dispute centers on a copyrighted photograph titled “Dua Lipa — Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024” which Samsung allegedly placed on the front of television retail packaging across the United States without her knowledge or consent. Lipa first discovered the alleged infringement in June 2025 via social media. Legal Claims & Applicable Law
The complaint asserts four overlapping causes of action, each targeting a distinct legal harm: 1. Copyright Infringement (17 U.S.C. § 501). Lipa owns the photograph and holds a valid U.S. Copyright Office registration, satisfying the threshold requirements of the Copyright Act. Under Section 106, copyright owners hold the exclusive right to reproduce and publicly display their works. Samsung’s alleged reproduction of the image on millions of retail boxes, without a license, constitutes direct infringement. Because Lipa sent cease-and-desist notices that Samsung allegedly ignored, the complaint characterizes the infringement as willful, which under 17 U.S.C. § 504(c)(2) can elevate statutory damages to up to $150,000 per work infringed. 2. Right of Publicity — California Civil Code § 3344. California’s statutory right of publicity prohibits the use of a person’s name, photograph, or likeness for commercial purposes without prior consent. The statute applies to both knowing and negligent use, and provides for actual damages, disgorgement of profits, and a minimum statutory penalty of $750 per unauthorized use. Lipa’s complaint contends that Samsung commercially exploited her recognizable face to drive television sales, precisely the conduct the statute was designed to prevent. 3. False Endorsement — Lanham Act § 43(a) (15 U.S.C. § 1125(a)). Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act creates a federal cause of action for false endorsement where the use of a celebrity’s identity is likely to cause consumer confusion as to whether that celebrity sponsors or approves of the defendant’s goods. Courts apply a multi-factor likelihood-of-confusion test, and Lipa’s complaint supports this claim with social media evidence showing consumers believed her presence on the packaging signaled a genuine endorsement deal. 4. Trademark Dilution & Infringement (15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125(c)). Lipa alleges that her name and likeness function as a protectable mark associated with a carefully curated luxury brand. Unauthorized commercial association with a mass-market consumer product, the complaint argues, dilutes the distinctiveness of that mark under the Federal Trademark Dilution Revision Act and may tarnish the brand by linking it to goods she would not have chosen to endorse. Samsung’s refusal to withdraw the packaging after repeated demands strengthens the willfulness element across all trademark claims. Samsung’s Response
Samsung has not denied using Lipa’s image but disputes the circumstances. A company spokesperson stated that the photograph was used in 2025 to reflect content available through third-party partners on Samsung TVs and was originally provided by a content partner for Samsung TV Plus, the company’s free streaming service. Samsung asserts it used the image only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for use on retail boxes. The company has expressed that it “has great respect for Ms. Lipa and the intellectual property of all artists” and stated it remains open to a constructive resolution. Outlook
Social media evidence attached to the complaint shows consumers directly crediting Lipa’s image as a reason for purchasing the televisions, bolstering the false endorsement and dilution claims. The case will likely turn on the adequacy of Samsung’s due diligence when relying on a third-party content partner’s assurance of cleared rights, a question with significant implications for how electronics manufacturers manage celebrity image licensing throughout their supply chains. | 
