Erling Haaland v Norwegian: a fight over image rights
The striker has a company suing the airline Norwegian. At its core the case is not about a flight but about the commercial use of an unmistakable appearance.
The occasion sounds trivial at first: an airline plays in a campaign with long blonde hair meant to call Erling Haaland to mind. But the dispute that has grown out of it leads to a fundamental question of modern sport: who is allowed to profit from a world-famous person when their name is never even mentioned?
According to the Norwegian newspaper Verdens Gang, York Promotions Ltd., a company in the footballer's orbit, has sued Norwegian Air Shuttle ASA. At issue is a World Cup-related advertising campaign. The allegation is, in substance, that the airline exploited the star's recognisability without obtaining a licence. Norwegian rejects the criticism, according to the report, and considers the lawsuit hard to comprehend.
Not an ordinary passenger dispute
The case is not, as the pointed phrase «Haaland sues an airline» might suggest, a conflict about baggage or conditions of carriage. It concerns trademark and personality rights. For elite athletes these rights are an essential part of their economic value: not only shirt advertising and sponsorship but also the use of names, images, gestures or characteristic features are governed by contract.
Haaland's ponytail and his physical appearance are instantly recognisable in the football public. An advertisement can therefore create proximity to him even when it uses no photograph. Whether that is legally sufficient depends on the specific execution: is the allusion so clear that the audience assumes a commercial connection? Is merely a well-known cultural image being quoted? Or is the fame deliberately used as a sales argument?
That distinction is difficult in an individual case. Humour and parody enjoy protection in many legal systems. Advertising, however, is not a neutral art form: it pursues a commercial aim. The more strongly it conveys the impression of a cooperation, an endorsement or a recommendation, the more likely consent may be required.
The value lies in recognisability
For companies the temptation is great to latch onto a star's fame without paying their fee. Especially at major events, official sponsorship rights are expensive and hotly contested. Indirect allusions promise attention at lower cost.
For athletes it is about control over their profile. An unlicensed association can not only cost revenue but also affect existing contracts. Anyone, for instance, exclusively linked to a brand from the travel industry must be able to prevent a competitor from creating the same impression. That is why top players often manage their personality rights through their own companies — as in the Haaland case.
The dispute also shows that rights to one's own image are not limited to a photo of a face. Recognisability can arise from a combination of hairstyle, clothing, movement or staging. Whether a court recognises a protected identity in this depends on the advertisement, the audience and the relevant law.
What the case means for Swiss advertising
For Swiss companies the same practical caution applies. Under the Civil Code, personality rights protect, among other things, one's own depiction; in an advertising context, the Unfair Competition Act and trademark rights may also be relevant. A campaign that clearly targets a well-known person should not rely on the omission of the name to remove all risk.
That does not mean that every similarity would be prohibited. General fashion, hairstyles or sports motifs cannot be monopolised. What matters is whether the specific design appropriates a person's economic aura. Exactly this boundary is what the Norwegian proceedings will sound out.
The outcome is open. One thing is already certain: in elite sport, fame has long been a tradable asset. Anyone who wants to use it for an advertising message needs more than a winking idea — they need a legally sustainable answer to whose attention they are actually selling.
Sources Verdens Gang: report on the lawsuit brought by York Promotions: vg.no/sport/i/Bx706l/erling-braut-haaland-har-gaatt-til-sak… SRF: report on the advertising campaign: srf.ch/news/gesellschaft/haariger-wm-spass-fussballstar-erl… Swiss Civil Code, protection of personality: https://www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/24/233_245_233/de SECO: Unfair Competition Act: https://www.seco.admin.ch/seco/de/home/Werbeverbot.html
