You may have noticed the extra large Samsung television boxes lining the articles of Walmart or Best Buy. An image of a television homescreen is printed on the box, and most notably, Dua Lipa’s face is the background on the screen. But, did Dua Lipa ever give consent for her image to be used in marketing?
Earlier this month, pop star Dua Lipa sued Samsung in California federal court, alleging that the company used her image on television packaging without authorization and in a way that suggested endorsement. The suit alleges copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of publicity rights. Samsung, for its part, has said the image came from a third-party partner that assured the company all necessary permissions had been secured.
This pattern should feel familiar to many brands. A creative asset moves through a campaign pipeline, a partner or vendor represents that clearance has been handled, the campaign goes live, and only later does the legal risk become visible. By then, the issue is no longer theoretical.
This Is Bigger Than Celebrity Endorsement
At first glance, this might appear to be a simple celebrity likeness case. We think this misses the larger lesson, which is that brand risk today typically arises through a chain of assumptions made across marketing, creative, licensing, packaging, and distribution.
What makes the reported allegations so instructive is the mix of assets involved. The disputed image allegedly appeared on the front of TV boxes for retail sale, which raises multiple legal questions at once: who owned the copyright in the image? Who had the right to use Dua Lipa’s likeness in a commercial context? Could consumers read the packaging as an endorsement? Were internal teams relying too heavily on third-party assurances?
These questions underscore that brand risk frequently develops not through a single decision, but across multiple decision points that, in isolation, could seem safe.
Third-Party Control is Dangerous
When a campaign includes celebrity imagery, licensed photography, third-party creative, product packaging, or platform-specific promotional assets, legal review cannot be treated as a final sign-off step. It has to be part of how the campaign is built.
Otherwise, the business may be relying on fragments of clearance rather than actual clearance. A vendor may have rights to create content for one channel, but not for product packaging. An image may be licensed for editorial or platform use, but not commercial use tied to product sales. A likeness may be recognizable enough to drive consumer attention even where no formal endorsement deal exists. In the Dua Lipa case, screenshots attached to the filing included social media comments suggesting some consumers were motivated to buy the TVs because Dua Lipa appeared on the box.
That is where the legal and brand issues start to merge.
The Minx Law Perspective
The lesson is not simply “clear your rights” – sophisticated brands already know that. The real lesson is that IP clearance should be treated as strategic infrastructure, especially when marketing campaigns move quickly and involve layered creative assets and third parties.
That means asking harder questions earlier. Who owns the asset? What rights were actually granted? What uses were approved? Does the permission extend to packaging, retail display, paid media, social, and international distribution? Is the company relying on a contract, an assumption, or a chain of emails no one has pressure-tested?
The faster a campaign moves, the more disciplined that process needs to be.
Once a campaign is public, the issue is no longer just whether a right was overlooked. It is whether the brand is now defending a market-facing use that consumers already interpreted as intentional.
