Rihanna Wins $5M Lawsuit Against Topshop For Using Her Pictures On Their Shirts

Rihanna won the battle in fighting for copyright infringement as British Topshop used an image of her face on one of their T-shirts, E! Online reports.

The case which has been started in 2013, under Mr Justice Birss , said that the use of Riri's image said to be taken in 2011 in the filming of a music video in Northern Ireland are 'deceptive' and requires legal permission from the singer or her representatives.

Initially, the Shine Like A Diamond Singer has sued Arcadia, Top Shop's main company, for $5 Million with the Court of Appeals in London has already agreed that the shirts should not be sold publicly and be banned.

This move to ban the Rihanna shirts has been initially agreed on by three judges saying that marketing the shirts without the singer's permission and knowledge will amount to "passing off" or the an unauthorized use of a trademark or image rights.

As cited by the Business Insider, Lord Justice Underhill issued a statement from the Court Ruling of Appeal statement saying, "The judge's conclusion that some members of the relevant public would think that the t-shirt was endorsed by Rihanna is based essentially on two things - her past public association with Topshop (as described by Kitchin LJ at paras. 17-18) and the particular features of the image itself, which is apparently posed and shows her with the very distinctive hairstyle adopted in the publicity for Talk That Talk.

The Judge further said: "I do not believe that either by itself would suffice; in particular, Rihanna's association with Topshop does not seem to me to have been such as to weigh very heavily in the balance. But the judge considered the question very carefully, taking due account of the factors going the other way, and in my view he was entitled to find that the two features in combination were capable of giving rise to the necessary representation."

Meanwhile, reports from BBC said that lawyers from Top Shop defended their side saying that there is a misunderstanding that there was "no intention to create an appearance of an endorsement or promotion" or "to create confusion" and "false messages" among customers.