Maradona’s Children Win Landmark UK Legal Battle Over Image Rights

What happened: Despite some media describing a “High Court ruling,” the win that reshapes control over Diego Maradona’s commercial identity in the UK currently rests on a UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) decision (15 May 2025) refusing three UK trade-mark applications that sought to appropriate DIEGO ARMANDO MARADONA and Maradona’s signature. A procedural order by the Appointed Person on 7 August 2025kept the appeal in the specialist appellate forum (and refused an attempt to transfer the case to the High Court). The UKIPO decision is the operative judgment at this stage. 

The short version:

• Who won? Maradona’s five heirs (Dalma, Giannina, Jana, Diego Jr., and Diego Fernando) successfully opposed three UK trade-mark applications filed by a UK company (formerly Maradona Global Ltd, later Podium Icons Ltd). 
  
  
• What did they win? The UKIPO refused the applications in full, finding bad faith and, in part, likelihood of confusion with the heirs’ earlier registered mark. Result: the would-be registrant cannot monopolise “Diego Armando Maradona” or the signature mark in the UK via these filings. 
  
  
• Why is it big? The decision squarely applies modern UK law on bad-faith trade-mark filings (post-SkyKick in the UK Supreme Court) to the name/signature of a global icon and explains how control passes to heirs on death. 

The legal stakes: no “general image right,” so trademarks do the heavy lifting:

Unlike some US states (e.g., right of publicity), UK law does not recognise a standalone, posthumous “image right. “Control over a celebrity’s name, image, or signature is achieved indirectly, most often through registered trademarks and the tort of passing off (misrepresentation/false endorsement). Leading cases reaffirm there is no free-standing image right: Elvis Presley Trade Marks [1999] RPC 567; Irvine v Talksport [2002] EWCA Civ 423; and Fenty v Arcadia (Topshop) [2015] EWCA Civ 3 (upholding a passing-off claim where Rihanna’s image on a T-shirt misrepresented endorsement). 

Why that matters here: the heirs’ UK victory was not a court declaring “image rights” in the abstract. It was a focused trade-mark opposition win that prevents a third party from registering and controlling core elements of Maradona’s identity in the UK register, practically, the most powerful lever for stopping unlicensed merchandising in this jurisdiction. 

Inside the UKIPO judgment: how the hearing officer applied the law:

1) Bad faith (Trade Marks Act 1994, s.3(6)) - the decisive ground

The hearing officer (Teresa Perks) set out the UK Supreme Court’s post-SkyKick framework on bad faith and applied it to the facts. The key test: whether the application sought an exclusive right “with the intention of undermining, in a manner inconsistent with honest practices, the interests of third parties” or for purposes other than a trade mark’s origin-indicating function. 

Applying that test, the officer found a prima facie case of bad faith and held the applicant’s “legitimate owner” claim was “no more than an empty claim,” unsupported by evidence. In a telling passage, she wrote that pressing on with the filings even after the heirs opposed them “indicates a dishonest intention at the relevant dates.”

“The very act of applying for the registration of a trade mark using the name of a famous person, but without any commercial connection, amounts to ‘free riding’ on that person’s fame.” citing the EU General Court’s NEYMAR judgment (Moreira v EUIPO, T-795/17). 

The officer also relied on contemporaneous Argentine measures restraining a third-party company (Sattvica) from exploiting Maradona’s name/image, and on medical/notarial evidence questioning a late life “image rights” licence, to explain why any purported chain of title could not justify UK filings. These facts supported the bad-faith inference. 

Outcome on s.3(6): all three applications failed in their entirety for bad faith. 

2) Conflict with earlier marks (s.5(1)/ (2))—partial additional wins

Separately, the heirs relied on a UK registered mark (filed 2021; registered 2022) that covers classes 9, 14, 25, 28, 32 and 41—described as protecting Maradona’s signature and forename(s). The officer found identity/similarity and likelihood of confusion for swathes of the specifications, noting consumers would think the marks “come from the same stable,” i.e., the estate or a licensee. 

The public would believe the signs “come from the same stable… the entity responsible for exploiting the rights to the name and image of the deceased football player.” * 

By contrast, the heirs’ claims based on reputation (s.5(3)) and passing off (s.5(4)(a)) were not made out on the evidence presented, an important reminder that proof of goodwill/use is essential when pleading those grounds. 

3) Succession and who owns what after death

A striking part of the decision summarises EUIPO and EU General Court findings on who owned Maradona’s EU trade mark after his death: ownership passes immediately to the heirs by universal succession, so any transfer requires their consent. 

“The death of the EUTM proprietor has an immediate effect… the heirs… acquire ownership.” * (summarising EUIPO Board of Appeal; upheld in T-299/22). 

The appellate posture (August 2025): still within the specialist track

On 7 August 2025, the Appointed Person (UK IPO’s appellate route) refused the applicant’s request to transfer the appeal to the High Court, keeping the matter in the trade-mark specialist forum. That order did not overturn the opposition win; it simply fixes where the appeal will be heard. 

How this plays with the EU cases (and beyond):

This UK outcome sits alongside the heirs’ EU victories. In November 2023, the EU General Court (T-299/22) confirmed EUIPO’s refusal to record a transfer of the DIEGO MARADONA EUTM in favour of Sattvica: the documents were authorisations to exploit, not a true assignment, and, post-death, only heirs could consent. (Sattvica later lodged an appeal, C-12/24 P.) 

Together, the EU and UK strands make a coherent rule-of-law story: no one can short-circuit succession by brandishing “licences” or marketing arrangements to grab a trade mark that, on death, devolved to the heirs. That principle travelled from EUIPO/General Court into the factual matrix the UKIPO used to test bad faith. 

What this doesn’t mean (and why precision matters):

• It is not a blanket, posthumous “image right” judgment. UK law still offers no general image right. Protection flows from registered rights (trade marks) and passing off in the right evidential circumstances. 
  
  
• It is not (yet) a High Court precedent. The key UK decision is an administrative judgment by a UKIPO hearing officer; the appeal remains within the Appointed Person track as of August 2025. 

Practical consequences for rights holders, brands, and retailers:

1. Trade-mark strategy is central. For estates managing a global icon, file early and broadly for names, signatures, nicknames, and stylised marks, then police filings by others. The UKIPO decision shows how solid earlier rights + bad-faith facts can stop an attempted land-grab. 
2. Passing off remains the backstop. Where no registration exists (e.g., on a particular logo/goods), estates can still act in passing off if they can prove goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage, as in Irvine and Fenty. 
3. Licences vs. assignments matter. The EU cases stress the distinction: authorisations to exploit are not assignments. After death, heirs control consents and transfers. Anyone contracting on “legacy” branding should conduct succession diligence. 
4. Bad faith has sharper teeth post-SkyKick. UK tribunals will probe the commercial logic of a filing and draw inferences from conduct, e.g., pressing ahead after heir’s object. The Maradona decision is a textbook application of that doctrine. GOV.UK

Select quotes and where to read the rulings:

• Bad faith finding: “The oppositions… succeed in their entirety [under s.3(6)].”* (Outcome) GOV.UK
• Free-riding on fame: “Applying for a trade mark using the name of a famous person, without any commercial connection, amounts to ‘free riding’.”* (citing NEYMAR) GOV.UK
• Consumer perception: The public would think the signs “come from the same stable,” i.e., the estate or its licensee.* GOV.UK
• Succession principle: On death, heirs acquire ownership of the trade mark; transfers then require their authorisation.* (EU strand summarised) GOV.UK

Read the decisions:

• UKIPO opposition decision (O/0434/25, 15 May 2025) — full PDF. GOV.UK
• Appointed Person order (O/0743/25, 7 Aug 2025) on transfer to the High Court - full PDF. GOV.UK
• EU General Court press release and order in T-299/22 (Sattvica v EUIPO – Maradona and Others) (7 Nov 2023). Curia

What to watch next:

• Appointed Person appeal: The merits appeal from the UKIPO decision remains to be determined within the appellate track; the transfer bid has been refused. Outcome will matter for any fine-tuning of the reasoning but won’t change the evidence-led bad-faith template now on record. GOV.UK
• Further consolidations: Expect the heirs to continue rationalising the global portfolio (UK, EU, Argentina, Italy, Spain, US) and to build an official licensing architecture -now on stronger footing given the UK and EU wins. (For the EU win/appeal, see T-299/22 and C-12/24 P.) CuriaEUR-Lex

Bottom line:

Calling this a “win over image rights” is journalistically tidy but legally imprecise. The real achievement is more concrete: Maradona’s children have blocked rival UK trademark claims to their father’s name and signature by proving bad faith and (in part) confusion under the Trade Marks Act. In the UK’s legal toolkit, where there is no general image right, that is precisely how you secure posthumous control over a global icon’s commercial identity. GOV.UK Supreme Court UK