Famous singer Rihanna sued her father Ronald Fenty , accusing him of aggressively using her image in his brand Fenty Beauty and the capsule Savage x Fenty. If the court satisfies her demands, Daddy will need to pay the star $75 million .

Meanwhile, Rihanna herself is mentioned in another lawsuit that has been dragging on since the spring of 2017. Then, in a California court, the German sports fashion giant PUMAdemanded to protest the issue of shoes and clothing trade Forever 21, which violate copyrights, and simply copy the products exactly PUMA.

Now the litigation has flared up with particular force, as lawyersForever 21 broughtPUMA counter-charges. A long list of accusations from lawyers who have carefully studied patents and technologies crowns the main argument: PUMA declared Rihanna not only as ambassador of its brand, but also designer, so the singer had to be represented in The US Patent Office as an author and developer of models, which was not done. Thus, the US federal law on advertising has been violated.

At the end of last year, the parties quietly and away from the court hype settled their dispute, which harmed both brands. But the topic was raised by the media, and now the battle of brands has flared up with renewed vigor.

Since the conflict was resolved before any judicial decisions were made regarding the reliability of PUMA's intellectual property applications (or their absence, taking into account the level of creative participation). Rihanna), the question remains on the agenda: how seriously did the German sports fashion brand violate the federal law of the USA on advertising, openly stating that Rihanna played the role of designer?

Raised by the community specializing in thefashion industry lawyers noise about Rihanna and other celebrities, whom brands represent as designers for the sake of increasing sales, has far-reaching consequences.

Firstly, the creativity and work of unknown fashion designers, who have become such "slaves of the fashion industry" and creating things instead of stars, is belittled.

Secondly, the buyer begins to form the opinion that skill and work with professional training mean nothing in the fashion world. Good, widely sold things can allegedly be created by rappers and movie actresses, gymnasts and top models, TV show stars or just rich children of aristocratic families. But, as you know, talent needs to be helped in the fashion world. The craze for collaborations with celebrities is starting to tire, because most of the images and models created by the stars are mediocre fantasies on the theme of "this is what I want to wear, which means it's cool."

That is why the court requirements of Forever 21 have been significantly expanded today. Now they are asking to involve a group of individuals unknown to the press and herself in the testimony Rihanna to testify about the authorship and names in the specified PUMA patents. The trial will be very interesting, since for the first time the defendant, accused of plagiarism, becomes the plaintiff himself with the requirement to clearly find out the authorship of the models that he copied. The lawyers managed to find completely unexpected weaknesses of the opponent for the sake of victory. 

But suing for false or misleading advertising is not so easy. This requires the plaintiff's side to provide the following evidence:

1. the respondent brand made a false message about its own or someone else's products (for example, using images);
2. the claim of infringement was false or misleading;
3. a false or misleading statement is "material", which means that it may affect the decision of consumers regarding the products in question.

Brand Forever 21 step by step calculated all his actions and mistakes of the enemy. Now they are seeking a hearing with the participation of not only the singer, but also representatives of her recording studio, her producers, as well as the director of the shoe design group in the Fenty x PUMA collaboration, Ricardo Pina.