Seoul-headquartered Samsung just recently made its dismissal motion official, after the straightforward complaint itself set sail back in May. As we were first to report, Lipa maintains that the defendants exploited “her valuable image and likeness…on cardboard television boxes.”

The way the “Levitating” act tells the story, Samsung incorporated the copyrighted photo in question, captured backstage at Austin City Limits in 2024, without permission “to improperly capitalize on” her “hard-earned success” en route to moving more products.

(Though the photo seems to appear on the box alongside a logo for XITE Hits, the self-described “ultimate music video streaming service” isn’t a party to the action.)

“Samsung’s infringing conduct—using Ms. Lipa’s assets for zero consideration—makes a mockery of her hard work in establishing a successful brand and has deprived her of the ability to control and monetize her assets,” the plaintiff vented.

Shortly after the legal battle’s kickoff, Samsung denied the allegations and expressed a willingness to explore “a constructive resolution.” Four months and one firmly worded dismissal motion later, however, said resolution evidently failed to materialize.

“Plaintiff does not, and cannot, plead the narrow circumstance these courts have identified as the sole path to [trademark] protection: that the one specific photograph at issue here, as cropped and printed on the allegedly infringing products, has been consistently used by Plaintiff herself as a source identifier for particular goods or services,” the legal text proceeds.

Consequently, the court should toss the 31-year-old’s direct trademark infringement claims and, in doing so, must therefore dismiss the contributory claim, per the document.

As laid out in the dismissal motion, the suit’s cited “familiar, tongue-in-cheek social media hyperbole” doesn’t demonstrate that members of the public are actively being deceived.

“An interface depicting a music-video channel among several unrelated content icons conveys nothing suggesting Plaintiff endorses the televisions,” a relevant line reads. “The images merely depict the televisions’ on-screen interface, illustrating the applications and content available on the device. Considered in its full context, the Complaint does not plausibly allege consumer confusion as to whether Plaintiff endorses the products.”

“The mere existence of a parent-subsidiary relationship is insufficient as a matter of law to establish the ‘control’ required for vicarious copyright or trademark infringement,” one sentence aptly sums up.

Meanwhile, London-born Lipa’s publicity rights claims allegedly fall short because “California recognizes both a statutory and common law right of publicity, and England recognizes neither.”

That’s important on multiple levels – including due to the Ninth Circuit precedent “that a foreign domiciliary’s right of publicity claim is governed by the law of her domicile, not California’s, because the right is a property right that follows its owner.”

Finally, the “impermissible shotgun pleading” allegedly misses the mark by attributing “the alleged conduct indiscriminately to multiple defendants” and incorporating “every preceding allegation and cause of action into each successive count.”

“This ‘shotgun’ pleading style violates the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, as confirmed by the Ninth Circuit,” according to Samsung.