Can you name a product after a celebrity in Australia?

Everyone who launches a product wants a little of the excitement a famous name carries. A lipstick shade, a sneaker colourway or a coffee blend named after a public figure gets attention that a plain name cannot match. The trouble is that a name which points clearly at a real, well-known person can quietly create legal exposure that has nothing to do with how good your product is. This article works through when that exposure arises, the specific laws that create it, and the safer ways to keep some of the appeal without the risk.

What actually counts as naming a product after a celebrity

This is wider than writing a person's full legal name on the label. You run into the same territory when you use a first name, a stage name, a nickname, a catchphrase or any distinctive signifier that most people would connect to a specific public figure. Common examples are a shade or style named after a singer, an item described as a "signature" product that implies a particular person designed or approved it, or a moniker on packaging that clearly points at one individual.

You do not need to use the full name. If ordinary customers would read the name or phrase and think of one particular person, and assume that person is connected to the product, that is where the risk lives. The legal question is rarely whether you copied a name exactly. It is how the overall impression of your branding would be read by the average consumer.

Does Australia recognise a "right of publicity"?

No, and this is the first thing to understand before you weigh up the risk. Australia does not have a single, standalone legal right over a person's name, image or likeness in the way that many United States states recognise a "right of publicity". The Arts Law Centre of Australia confirms there is no specific law in Australia aimed at preventing unauthorised use of a person's image, and the protections that do exist come from a patchwork of other laws.

That does not mean the name is therefore safe to use. What it means is that the protection is indirect. A celebrity (or their company, estate or brand) has to fit the unauthorised use into one of several recognised legal categories rather than relying on one simple image right. In practice the categories that matter are trade marks, misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law, the common law of passing off, and occasionally copyright, defamation and moral rights. Each of these is explained in turn below.

Trade mark infringement

Many prominent people, or the companies behind them, register their name, signature or nickname as trade marks across several classes of goods and services, often covering cosmetics, clothing, accessories and lifestyle products. If you use a mark that is substantially identical with, or deceptively similar to, a registered trade mark, for the goods or services in which that mark is registered, you can infringe it under s 120 of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth).

There are two points worth flagging that make this risk broader than it first looks. First, under s 120(3) of the Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth), a trade mark that is well known in Australia can be infringed even when you use something deceptively similar in relation to goods that are unrelated to the classes in which the mark is registered, as long as the sign is likely to be taken as indicating a connection with the owner. In other words, a heavily promoted celebrity mark can extend protection well beyond its registered classes. Second, you do not need to use a word that is identical. The law captures signs that are "deceptively similar", which is a broader test focused on whether consumers would be confused.

Before you shortlist any celebrity-inspired name, do proper clearance searches. Check registered and pending marks, common law use, and any brand lines already associated with that person. Finding a conflict at the naming stage is cheap; discovering it after you have paid for packaging and media is expensive. If you are developing a genuinely original name for your own brand, early clearance is still worth doing, but the priority is to avoid walking into a mark that already belongs to someone else.

Misleading or deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law

Consumers are protected, rather than the celebrity directly, by the general prohibition on misleading or deceptive conduct. Section 18 of the Australian Consumer Law (which is Schedule 2 of the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)) provides that a person must not, in trade or commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive.

A product name or marketing that implies a celebrity's involvement where there is none fits squarely within this. If the overall impression of your product title, packaging or online listing suggests an endorsement, sponsorship or an official connection that does not exist, that conduct is capable of being misleading or deceptive.

There is also a more specific set of rules in s 29 of the Australian Consumer Law about false or misleading representations. Relevantly, s 29(1)(g) prohibits a false or misleading representation that goods or services have sponsorship, approval or affiliation, and s 29(1)(h) prohibits a false or misleading representation that the person making the representation has sponsorship, approval or affiliation. If your branding suggests that a celebrity sponsors, approves or is affiliated with your product when that is not true, you are at risk under both the general conduct provision and these specific representation provisions.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission has pursued businesses over advertising that falsely suggests a celebrity endorses or uses a product. The key takeaway for a naming decision is that a "playful nod" can still mislead if the overall impression suggests an official connection. Whether conduct is misleading is judged by how it is understood in the real world, not by your intention.

Passing off and false endorsement

Passing off is a common law action that protects a person's reputation and goodwill. To make out passing off, the person bringing the claim must generally show that they have goodwill or reputation in the name or get-up, that your use misrepresents a connection or association that does not exist, and that this misrepresentation causes or is likely to cause them damage.

Character merchandising is a well-established area of these claims in Australia. In Hogan v Pacific Dunlop Ltd (1989) 23 FCR 553, the makers of the film Crocodile Dundee and the actor Paul Hogan succeeded against an advertiser that used the "Crocodile Dundee" character to cash in on the merchandising value of the film. In Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp v The South Australian Brewing Co Ltd (1996) 66 FCR 451, the producers of The Simpsons restrained a brewery from selling a "Duff" beer that traded on the association with the show's fictional beer. These cases show that the courts take a broad view of the "association" a product can suggest, and will protect the goodwill in a character or persona, not just a literal name.

When assessing whether a misrepresentation exists, the court looks at the total picture: the product name, packaging, product descriptions, social media captions, hashtags, imagery and even the timing and context of the launch. A small-print disclaimer will not always cure a misleading dominant impression. In the Duff beer case, the court distinguished the Crocodile Dundee situation and declined to treat a disclaimer as automatically fixing the problem, because the use of the identical beer name was central to the association. The lesson is that you cannot rely on a disclaimer to rescue a name that otherwise points squarely at a person or an existing brand.

Images, signatures and style elements

Because there is no general Australian right over a person's image, using a celebrity's photograph, signature or stylised likeness in a commercial context can still be risky through other routes:

Copyright protects photographs and artwork, and the rights sit with the creator or rights holder. You need an appropriate licence to use images commercially, and many licences, including stock licences, restrict "endorsement" uses.
Even with a licence to display an image, using it in a way that suggests endorsement or sponsorship can breach the Australian Consumer Law or amount to passing off.
Creators also hold moral rights, including the right of attribution and the right not to have their work treated in a prejudicial way, which matter if you edit, crop or repurpose imagery.

The practical point is that you do not always "need consent" as a matter of a specific image right. But in most marketing scenarios, getting written permission and clear licensing is the safest path, because it addresses several overlapping risks at once.

Two further risks are worth keeping on the radar. Defamation can arise if your naming or marketing suggests something untrue and negative about a person that harms their reputation. A name or tagline that implies a celebrity is associated with a poor-quality or disreputable product carries this risk, even if the implication is subtle.

Beyond names and images, also watch catchphrases, handwriting-style logos and design cues that are distinctive of a particular person. These features can be protected by trade marks or copyright, particularly when used on products in trade. A name might clear one check and still run into trouble through a distinctive visual element that points at the celebrity.

The safer ways to keep the "celebrity halo"

If you want some of the appeal of a famous name without the exposure, three broad routes are worth considering:

The safest route is written permission. You might negotiate a licensing arrangement, a paid collaboration or an endorsement deal. If you go down this path, an endorsement agreement should set out exactly how the person's name and image may be used, the approval process for creative work, fees, content rights, exclusivity and how the arrangement can end. If creators or talent appear in the content, a talent release form clarifies usage rights, territories and duration. Where the campaign relies on creators rather than traditional celebrities, an influencer agreement aligns deliverables, disclosure obligations and intellectual property ownership from the start.

The second route is to build your own distinctive brand rather than lean on a celebrity reference at all. A unique brand is often more valuable, because it gives you room to scale, to expand into new product lines, and to avoid reputational knock-on if the celebrity later becomes controversial. Once you settle on a distinctive name and logo, it is worth exploring trade mark registration in the relevant classes so you can protect and enforce the brand you have built.

The third route, nominative or factual use, is narrow and needs care. In limited scenarios you might reference a person by name descriptively, for example in a factual comparison or a compatibility claim. But if the overall impression suggests endorsement, that narrow path closes. Parody is not a broad defence in Australia. If consumers are likely to be confused, or if you are using protected marks "as a badge of origin" in trade, the same Australian Consumer Law and trade mark issues apply.

A checklist before you go to market

These steps will not eliminate risk, but they will surface most of it before you spend money on packaging and media:

Run clearance searches. Look for registered and pending trade marks, including nicknames and stylised signatures, plus company and business names, domain names and common marketplace listings. Screenshot and file the results. If you uncover a conflict early, pivot the naming before you invest.
Test the endorsement risk. Ask how an average consumer would read the brand. Review the product title, packaging, product images, alt text, web copy, captions, hashtags and creator content. If the overall impression could imply sponsorship or approval, change the naming or seek permission.
Map your Australian Consumer Law exposure. Review the copy against s 18 and s 29 of the Australian Consumer Law. Avoid words and graphics that could imply "official", "authentic", "approved by" or "signature" connections unless that is true and documented.
Get permission where the reference matters. If the reference is central to the campaign, formalise it. Negotiate the scope, document it in an endorsement agreement, and make sure the necessary image and music licences are in place.
Protect your own assets. Once you settle on distinctive names and logos, explore trade mark registration for the relevant classes. It protects your value and deters lookalikes.
Brief your team. Give marketing, design and social teams concrete examples of what is acceptable and what crosses the line. If you work with agencies or freelancers, make sure contracts require compliance and approval of copy and assets.

Handling the edge cases a common-sense check misses

Three situations recur and are worth thinking through separately:

First names: Using only a first name is not automatically safe. If the first name is distinctive and likely to point to one particular person, the same Australian Consumer Law and passing off risks arise. A common or generic first name can be safer, but context and the overall impression still control the outcome.
Disclaimers: A disclaimer is not a reliable cure. As the Duff beer case illustrates, if the dominant impression still suggests an endorsement or association, a disclaimer may not prevent a claim. Treating a disclaimer as a get-out-of-jail card is a common and costly misreading of the case law.
Deceased celebrities: Honouring a deceased celebrity remains risky. A name can still point at a person who has died, and trade marks may be held by an estate or a company. The estate can also pursue passing off if the branding implies an official connection, as happened in the Diana trade mark opposition, McCorquodale v Masterson [2004] FCA 1247, where the executors of the estate of Diana, Princess of Wales successfully opposed registration of a mark that used her name and image. Run clearance searches and consider permission even for a deceased person.

When you should talk to a lawyer

The judgement calls in this area are exactly the kind a lawyer can help with, because they turn on how a real consumer would read your specific branding rather than on a bright-line rule. A lawyer can run or review clearance searches and interpret the results, form a view on whether a particular name is deceptively similar to a registered mark, assess whether the overall impression of your packaging and marketing is likely to mislead, and advise on whether a disclaimer is realistically going to hold up in your context.

If you decide to proceed with permission, a lawyer will draft or review the endorsement, talent release and influencer agreements so the scope of use, approvals, fees and exit terms are clear before you commit. If you are building an original brand, a lawyer can advise on a trade mark filing strategy across the classes and markets that matter to you, and can put in place the underlying brand and website terms. The point at which most businesses benefit from advice is before packaging and media spend, when the cost of fixing a problem is lowest.

The difference between permission and safety

The single most misunderstood element of this area is the difference between having permission and being free from risk. Because Australia has no standalone right of publicity, many business owners assume that if they are not copying a name "exactly" and they add a disclaimer, they are safe. The case law shows the opposite. The legal test is whether the overall impression of your product, read as a real consumer would read it, suggests an endorsement or association that does not exist. A distinctive first name, a clearly associated signifier, or an identical product name can each trigger trade mark, Australian Consumer Law and passing off risk, and a disclaimer will not reliably rescue a branding that otherwise points squarely at a person or an existing brand.

In summary, naming a product after a celebrity in Australia is not automatically illegal, but it is rarely as safe as it appears. The protection is a patchwork of trade mark, misleading conduct and passing off rules rather than one image right. Clearance searches, an honest test of the endorsement risk, and written permission where the reference matters are the core protections. If you are keeping the reference, formalise it; if you are not, build a distinctive brand you can own and protect.