This year’s theme for World IP Day is “IP and Sports: Ready, Set, Innovate.” We are publishing a series of articles highlighting the multifaceted role that intellectual property plays in the sports industry.
There are many registered sports-related trade marks, from brands that sell sports gear to sports teams selling branded merchandise. Many famous players have also registered their names as trade marks for commercial purposes, such as David Beckham and Lionel Messi. However, a recent development in the sports world gives rise to interesting questions surrounding trade mark law, and whether the protection offered is sufficient to safeguard the identity and brand of sportspeople and celebrities more generally.
Last month, Luke Littler, 19-year-old darts World Champion from Cheshire, applied to trade mark his face. Is this a new phenomenon in the sports world?
Athletes’ trade mark strategy
It is not uncommon for athletes to think outside the box when it comes to trade marks. Professional athletes are not always building brands in a traditional sense by selling products under their name, rather, their identity is a valuable asset in itself that can be leveraged for merchandising and endorsement opportunities.
Athletes are also known not just for their name and image, but for key moments on the pitch or the track. Therefore, instead of just obtaining trade mark protection for their name with a word mark registration, they have sought to gain ownership of their idiosyncrasies which are directly related to their sport.
For example, various athletes have rendered their celebration poses as still images, enabling them to be registered as figurative marks. In 2018, Kylian Mbappé trade-marked his cross-arms celebration pose in the EU and in 2024, Usain Bolt, registered a US trade mark for his post-run gesture. Bolt’s trade mark is described as “the silhouette of a man in a distinctive pose, with one arm bent and pointing to the head, and the other arm raised and pointing upward.” Crucially, however, these marks are registered as figurative logos as opposed to representing movement. These registrations protect only the figurative logo as a specific iteration of the celebration in relation to the registered goods and services, and not the general idea of the celebration itself.
Cole Palmer went one step further in protecting his signature celebration by registering not a figurative mark, but a motion mark. He secured a UK trade mark for his shivering motion in 2024, marking the first time a footballer has registered a motion mark for a celebration. The trade mark entry consists of a video of Palmer performing the motion.
This approach is likely preferable to registering a figurative design, as it could potentially prevent third parties from using Cole Palmer’s image to a greater extent, given that he is personally depicted in the motion mark. However, protection for the celebration itself remains limited, as a third party could simply use another individual to perform the motion to advertise goods and services, which would likely fall outside the scope of the registration.
In a similar vein, Luke Littler is experimenting by registering his own face as a trade mark to obtain some protection.
AI and deepfakes
Why is the protection of his image, or any sportsperson’s or famous person’s image, so important? 30 years on from the birth of the internet, celebrities have learnt to be careful about the way they present themselves. However, with the rise of AI, celebrities can no longer control the way they are portrayed online.
Generative AI can manufacture or manipulate images exactly according to user prompts. Advances in technology mean that AI-generated images are now highly realistic, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and generated content. AI-generated or manipulated media that convincingly depict events that never occurred and often involving real people are known as deepfakes.
The emergence of deepfakes has raised serious ethical concerns, as there are few limits to what can be portrayed, and such capabilities can be abused for harmful or inappropriate purposes. Beyond the risk of reputational damage, generative AI also facilitates the unauthorised commercialisation of a celebrity’s likeness.
Concerns are not limited to visual likeness. Scarlett Johansson, for example, has raised concerns that an OpenAI chatbot voice sounds eerie similar to hers after she declined to collaborate with the company.
Can you trade mark a face?
In light of deepfakes, it is understandable why Littler wants to protect his face from misuse, but will it work?
Under trade mark law in the UK, EU and US, a natural face cannot generally be registered as a trade mark, although a stylised likeness may qualify. The key hurdle is distinctiveness, as it is not considered possible for a photorealistic image of a human face to function as a trade mark or brand indicator. An important consideration here is whether a consumer would perceive the face as a brand in and of itself, the registry usually finding in the negative. Over the past decade, the EU IPO has received at least 80 applications for faces, but the majority were rejected due to a lack of distinctive character.
In 2020, Dutch model Maartje Verhoef’s application to register a figurative mark of her face was accepted, albeit this consisted of a simple black and white stylised representation of her face, rather than a photograph or full likeness. However, it was later successfully opposed by a third party due to a lack of distinctiveness based on the argument that her face was not a sign that could be used to distinguish her as a business for modelling services. Although Verhoef got further than most, the registry took quite a strict view here that even the stylised representation of her face was not sufficiently distinctive.
More recently, Matthew McConaughey filed clips of his voice, also with the intention to protect himself from manipulation by generative AI and unauthorised distribution. The clips have been registered at the US Patent and Trademark Office, and include his signature catchphrases.
Littler’s application is currently under examination at the UK IPO but will likely face the same distinctiveness issue, his application being a straightforward headshot. If objected to, Littler may also struggle to demonstrate acquired distinctiveness through use if his face has not already been used commercially as a badge of origin for particular goods and services, with his application covering a wide range of goods including jewellery, beverages and baked goods. If granted, the same issue would arise after five years when the registration becomes subject to proof of genuine commercial use.
Littler is also unlikely to be able to enforce widespread control over the use of his face. The scope of infringement is relatively narrow: the use must be identical or highly similar to the registered image. A figurative or stylised rendering of his face or even a photograph of him in a different context would likely fall outside of the scope of protection. In addition, trade mark infringement only arises when a mark is used in a commercial context as opposed to in a deepfake context where no products or services are being sold.
Image rights: is there another way?
Image rights refer to the ability to control how one’s image is used. They enable individuals to prevent others from using their name, likeness or distinctive personal features without permission. Littler’s application highlights the absence of a unified image rights regime in the UK and raises the question of whether legal reform is needed.
In the US, the “right of publicity” protects individuals against the unauthorised commercial use of their identity, including their name, likeness and other recognisable attributes. However, this right primarily protects economic interests and does not extend to reputational harm or derogatory use.
Last year, Denmark made history by becoming the first country to specifically protect’s one’s image and voice, challenging traditional concepts of intellectual property. By amending its copyright law, Denmark extended protection to individuals’ physical likeness. From 31 March 2026, all citizens have the right to request the removal of AI-generated content, seek compensation, and impose fines on platforms facilitating such use. It remains to be seen whether other European countries will follow suit, but this development may have a broader influence on jurisdictions such as the UK.
Trends in trade mark activity demonstrate that sportspeople are increasingly aware of their personal brand and the need to protect it, much like other celebrities. A carefully planned trade mark strategy is not limited to those who have launched separate commercial brands; it is relevant to any individual whose public profile may expose them to commercial exploitation.
The growing accessibility of generative AI and the rise of deepfakes complicate issues of consent and ownership, bringing the legal protection of likeness into sharper focus.
At present, athletes and celebrities have limited means of controlling how their image is used outside commercial contexts. However, trade marks remain one of the most effective tools for protecting their interests at least on a commercial level. While it remains to be seen whether Luke Littler’s application will succeed, it is a wise branding decision to look to obtain at least some trade mark protection within the existing system.
