Dua Lipa has urged a federal judge to reject Samsung‘s motion to dismiss her USD $15 million lawsuit over the use of her photograph on television boxes.
Her lawyers filed their response on October 15 in the US District Court for the Central District of California, accusing the electronics company of “theft.”
The 30-page filing, obtained by MBW, can be read in full here.
Lipa sued Samsung on May 8 over a photo of her that appeared on the boxes of Samsung TVs sold across the US.
According to the complaint, Lipa owns the copyright in the image, which is titled “Dua Lipa – Backstage at Austin City Limits, 2024.”
She is seeking at least USD $15 million in damages, plus punitive damages, legal fees, and a permanent court order barring Samsung from using her image.
Samsung asked the court to throw out the case on September 10.
Its lawyers argued that Lipa cannot claim trademark rights in a picture of her own face, and that the packaging did not suggest she endorsed the TVs.
Samsung also said English law should govern two of her claims, and that “England does not recognize a right of publicity” – meaning a person’s right to control commercial use of their identity.
It further argued that the complaint shows nothing beyond an ordinary parent-subsidiary relationship between Samsung Electronics America and its South Korean parent, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., and so fails to show that the parent controlled the alleged infringement.
A fourth argument was that the complaint fails to separate what the two companies are each accused of doing.
Lipa‘s response opens: “This case is straightforward.” Her lawyers go on to say that Samsung used her likeness on its TV packaging without her consent, then sold the TVs in California and across the US.
“In seeking to dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint, Samsung does not claim that it had permission to do so (it did not),” the filing states. “Instead, it asks the Court to accept a series of fallacious arguments that would leave Plaintiff – and any other internationally recognized celebrity – with no remedy for the unauthorized commercial exploitation of her identity on American shelves simply because she is domiciled outside of the United States.
“None of these arguments excuse Samsung‘s theft.”
On the question of endorsement, the filing points out that Samsung has been sued over a celebrity’s identity before.
In 1992, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit allowed Vanna White, co-host of the TV game show Wheel of Fortune, to pursue claims against Samsung over a VCR advertisement featuring a robot dressed to resemble her. The Ninth Circuit’s rulings are binding on the district court hearing Lipa‘s case.
“Samsung did far more here: it used an actual photograph of Plaintiff,” Lipa‘s lawyers write.
Samsung‘s motion said the photo formed part of a picture of the TV’s home screen, where it illustrated XITE HITS, a music video channel on Samsung TV Plus.
Lipa‘s lawyers counter: “Plaintiff’s face is the dominant element on the box, and nothing identifies her as channel content.”
Lipa‘s original complaint cited fan posts about the boxes, including one from a fan who wrote: “I wasn’t even planning on buying a tv but I saw the box so I decided to get it.”
Samsung‘s motion called such posts “tongue-in-cheek social media hyperbole.”
Lipa‘s filing responds: “Plaintiff’s image was valuable to Samsung precisely because consumers (and Samsung) understand what a celebrity’s face on a product means. Plaintiff does not lend her name and likeness casually; she licenses them selectively, and for significant compensation, through partnerships with high-end, luxury brands.
“Consumers accustomed to seeing Plaintiff in paid brand partnerships reasonably concluded, as the Complaint alleges, that her appearance on Samsung‘s packaging was another one. Samsung cannot credibly argue otherwise.”
“Consumers accustomed to seeing Plaintiff in paid brand partnerships reasonably concluded, as the Complaint alleges, that her appearance on Samsung‘s packaging was another one. Samsung cannot credibly argue otherwise.”
Dua Lipa‘s October 15 filing
Among the brands she has partnered with, the filing says, are Versace, Yves Saint Laurent, Porsche, and Apple.
It describes Apple as “Samsung’s direct competitor,” adding: “Consumers are thus accustomed to seeing Plaintiff lend her image to consumer technology.”
The longest section of Lipa‘s response deals with Samsung‘s argument that English law, not California’s, should govern her right of publicity claims.
Samsung contended that her own complaint shows she is domiciled in the UK – the country the law treats as her permanent home.
It pointed to her UK chart-topping albums, her seven Brit Awards, and a British GQ cover, all of which are cited in the complaint.
Lipa‘s lawyers deny she is domiciled in England, saying only that her domicile is outside the US.
“But chart performance does not determine domicile,” the filing states. “Otherwise, the same allegations would place Plaintiff’s domicile in the United States.”
Under Samsung‘s reasoning, it says, “any company could appropriate the identity of a foreign celebrity to sell products in California without permission, so long as the celebrity’s country of residence does not have a publicity statute. That is not the law.”
That dispute could test whether artists based outside the US can rely on California law when their image is used without permission on products sold there.
Even if English law did apply, Lipa‘s lawyers argue, English courts protect celebrities through a claim known as “passing off,” which can be brought against businesses that falsely imply an endorsement.
They cite a 2015 ruling by England’s Court of Appeal, which upheld a finding that retailer Topshop was liable for selling T-shirts bearing a photograph of Rihanna.
The brief also maintains that California has the predominant interest in the case, because the TVs were sold to consumers there.
“England, by contrast, has nothing at stake,” it adds, noting that one Samsung company is Korean and the other is a New York corporation.
On whether the Korean parent can be held responsible for sales by its US arm, Lipa‘s lawyers point to the SAMSUNG trademark printed on the boxes, which they say the parent company owns.
Samsung Electronics Co. “cannot bury its head in the sand while simultaneously branding the infringing packaging with its own mark for sale in the United States,” they argue.
They also call Samsung‘s argument that the complaint lumps the two companies together “baseless,” adding: “Samsung plainly understands what it is accused of.”
Samsung has not contested the substance of Lipa‘s direct copyright infringement claim against either company, the filing notes. Its only objection to that claim is that the complaint does not specify which company reproduced or distributed the image.
If the judge finds gaps in the complaint, Lipa is asking for the chance to revise it rather than have the case dismissed.
According to Lipa‘s filing, she discovered the boxes in or around June 2025 and immediately demanded that Samsung stop, but Samsung refused.
In May, Samsung blamed an unnamed content partner for the image.
“The image was used only after receiving explicit assurance from the content partner that permission had been secured, including for the retail boxes,” Samsung told Billboard at the time. “Given this assurance, we deny any allegations of intentional misuse.”
Samsung also said in a statement to South Korean media that it stopped producing the boxes and began replacing them after Lipa’s side raised concerns in July 2025.
Vanna White‘s case was not the last of its kind for Samsung.
In 2016, Pelé filed a USD $30 million suit against Samsung over an advertisement that he alleged featured a lookalike of him.
That case was dismissed in 2018, following settlement discussions.
Samsung’s motion is scheduled to be heard on December 14 before Judge Christina A. Snyder.Music Business Worldwide
