As generative AI and digital reproduction technologies become increasingly sophisticated, the boundaries of personality rights and brand protection are being tested. High-profile figures and global corporations are navigating a new legal landscape where traditional intellectual property (IP) frameworks are being applied to novel challenges, ranging from AI-generated deepfakes to unauthorised commercial use of an artist’s image.
Recent legal developments involving Taylor Swift and Dua Lipa highlight the evolving strategies used to protect an individual's "likeness" and the critical role of trade mark law in the digital age.
Proactive Protection in the AI Era
There is a growing trend among celebrities seeking to "future-proof" their likeness against generative AI. In April 2026, Taylor Swift’s management entity, TAS Rights Management, filed a series of strategic trade mark applications in the US aimed at protecting her specific vocal and visual identifiers.
These filings include two distinct ‘sound marks’ - trade marks that protect distinctive audio identifiers such as spoken phrases (including “Hey, it’s Taylor” and “Hey, it’s Taylor Swift.”), as well as a design mark based on a specific performance aesthetic, a photograph of the artist in an iridescent bodysuit with a pink guitar on a pink stage.
By registering these specific identifiers as trade marks, public figures gain a powerful enforcement tool. Unlike general publicity rights, which can vary by jurisdiction, these marks provide a basis to challenge AI-generated content that might lead consumers to believe an artist has officially endorsed a product or service. This tactical shift treats personal characteristics as "source identifiers," allowing for a more streamlined legal response to digital impersonation.
Commercial Misappropriation and the "New Rules" of Litigation
While Swift is focusing on emerging AI threats, a lawsuit filed in May 2026 by Dua Lipa against Samsung underscores the ongoing risks of ‘traditional’ commercial infringement. The artist is seeking $15 million in damages, alleging that her image was used on television packaging without the necessary authorisation.
The dispute centres on a backstage photograph from a 2024 appearance at the Austin City Limits Festival, which appeared on retail boxes for Samsung’s Crystal UHD TVs. The claim suggests that the use of the image was a calculated attempt to capitalise on the singer’s global brand to drive consumer sales, citing social media comments where fans referred to the product as the “Dua Lipa TV Box.”
Notably, Dua Lipa’s legal team is asserting "common law" trade mark rights in her image alongside copyright and ‘false endorsement’ claims. This approach argues that her likeness functions as a brand identifier, shifting the focus from the ownership of the photograph to the right to control the commercial exploitation of her face. Reports indicate that Samsung has attributed the inclusion of the image to a third-party content partner, highlighting the significant risks inherent in the global licensing chain.
The UK Perspective
While these cases are unfolding in the US, they carry significant weight for UK businesses and creators. The UK does not have a standalone "image right" per se, meaning that protection often relies on a "patchwork" of trade mark law and the common law tort of passing off.
The Dua Lipa case mirrors the landmark UK precedent of Rihanna v Topshop (2013), where the court found that unauthorised use of a celebrity's image on merchandise constituted passing off because it falsely suggested a commercial endorsement. More recently, we have seen UK figures take a proactive stance similar to Taylor Swift’s. Earlier in 2026, Jeremy Clarkson reportedly sought to register his own face as a trade mark, very much taking a leaf out of Cole Palmer’s book. This move was a direct response to the rise of AI-generated "deepfake" scams, using his likeness to promote fraudulent products. By registering his face as a trade mark, Clarkson gained a more robust legal mechanism to shut down unauthorised commercial uses than would be available under standard privacy or defamation laws.
Evolving IP Strategies for Brand Owners
These developments suggest a significant shift in how brand protection is perceived. In a landscape where voices and stage personas can be digitally replicated or misappropriated, protecting a name alone is no longer sufficient for high-profile individuals, who are increasingly looking at less common forms of trade mark protection to safeguard their public personas.
For businesses and creators alike, several key takeaways emerge:
Proactive Registration: IP strategies should consider non-traditional marks, such as sound and visual identity, to provide a robust basis for enforcement against both AI-generated misuse and traditional infringement.
The Importance of Diligence: As seen in the Samsung dispute, robust licensing audits are essential. Relying on third-party assurances without independent verification of rights can lead to significant litigation and reputational risk.
Trade Marks as a Shield: As digital replicas and unauthorised uses become more prevalent, the "public confusion" element of trade mark law remains one of the most effective avenues for protecting the commercial value of a persona.
As the lines between reality and digital replication blur, the legal toolkit for protecting one's identity is expanding. Whether it is a pop star protecting her voice from AI or a corporation facing a multi-million-pound likeness claim, these cases demonstrate that trade marks are no longer about logos, they are becoming essential safeguards for the very essence of a brand's identity.
Protecting Your Brand
If you need support with your core brand assets, our team is equipped to help. A comprehensive and proactive approach is the only way to safeguard your brand from the unexpected challenges that can arise.
Contact us today to discuss how to safeguard both your traditional trade marks and your brand's future innovations.