Key Takeaways
- Samsung asked a California federal judge to dismiss Dua Lipa’s $15 million lawsuit, arguing that she cannot claim trademark rights over her face and that its TV packaging did not imply her endorsement.
- Lipa says Samsung used her copyrighted Austin City Limits photo without permission on TV boxes sold across the U.S., commercially benefiting from her image without negotiating or paying her.
- Samsung also argues that Lipa’s U.K. domicile blocks her California publicity claims and that her complaint fails to specify each Samsung entity’s role; Judge Christina A. Snyder will hear the motion December 14.
Samsung put Dua Lipa’s face on its TV boxes. Now, the electronics giant says she can’t claim trademark rights over it.
According to Rolling Stone, Samsung Electronics America and its South Korean parent company have asked a California federal judge to dismiss the pop star’s $15 million lawsuit over a photo that appeared on television packaging sold across the United States. In a September 10 filing, the company argues that Lipa’s eight-count complaint stretches one disputed image into copyright, trademark, false endorsement, and publicity claims that do not hold up legally.
The photo shows Lipa backstage at the 2024 Austin City Limits Festival. On Samsung’s packaging, it appeared inside a rendering of the television’s home screen as the backdrop for XITE HITS, a music-video channel offered through Samsung TV Plus.
Icons for ABC News Live, Fox Sports, MLB and The First 48 by A&E appeared beneath it.
Lipa, who owns the photograph and registered it with the U.S. Copyright Office, says Samsung never received permission to reproduce the image. Her lawsuit alleges that a “significant portion” of the company’s televisions sold in the U.S. beginning in 2025 carried her face on the box, creating the impression that she had approved or endorsed the products.
Samsung wants the court to reject that argument outright.
“Plaintiff does not, and cannot, hold a trademark in her own image or likeness,” the company’s attorneys wrote.
The filing cites previous cases involving Tiger Woods, Babe Ruth and Bob Marley to argue that fame alone does not turn every photograph of a celebrity into a protected trademark.
Samsung also says the packaging did not present Lipa as a spokesperson. According to the company, her photo was simply one piece of content displayed within a mock television interface—not a suggestion that she had partnered with Samsung.
Lawyers dismissed fan posts cited in Lipa’s complaint, including one declaring that sellers should “just put a picture of Dua Lipa on it,” as social-media hyperbole rather than proof that buyers believed she endorsed the televisions.
That distinction matters for Lipa, whose complaint frames control of her image as a multimillion-dollar business asset. She has attached her name and likeness to a selective slate of major fashion and luxury campaigns, including work with Versace and Yves Saint Laurent.
Her legal team argues that Samsung received the commercial benefit of that association without negotiating a deal or paying for it.
Lipa says she discovered the packaging in June 2025 and quickly sent cease-and-desist demands. Her complaint describes Samsung’s response as “dismissive and callous.”
The company later said an unnamed content partner had explicitly assured it that permission for the image had been secured, including its use on retail boxes.
Samsung’s dismissal bid does not directly contest whether the photograph itself is protected by copyright. Instead, the company argues that Lipa failed to identify which Samsung entity actually reproduced or distributed it. The filing similarly claims she has not shown that the Korean parent company controlled the alleged actions of its American subsidiary.
The company is attacking her publicity claims from another direction: geography. Samsung argues that Lipa lives in the United Kingdom and therefore cannot rely on California’s right-of-publicity protections. England, its lawyers contend, does not recognize an equivalent standalone right over a person’s image or likeness.
Finally, Samsung calls the lawsuit an impermissible “shotgun” complaint that repeatedly lumps two separate corporate entities together without specifying what each allegedly did.
Judge Christina A. Snyder is scheduled to hear Samsung’s motion on December 14.
