An athlete's identity is a commercial asset, and the law increasingly treats it that way. The latest reminder comes from Norway, where Manchester City striker Erling Haaland has sued Norwegian Air Shuttle over the airline's use of his identity in a World Cup promotion.

Haaland's lawyers describe the claim as one concerning the unlawful use of his "distinctive signs" to sell plane tickets during the tournament. Norway's run to the quarter-finals this summer, its first World Cup since 1998, ended in a 2-1 defeat to England.

According to Norwegian press reports, the dispute centres on a social media image of one of the airline's aircraft wearing a ponytail, long Haaland's trademark look, captioned with a line about never having looked more Norwegian. The post has since been taken down. The airline says it was simply joining in national celebrations and calls the lawsuit regrettable.

The case raises a question that rights holders and advertisers face in every jurisdiction: when does riding a national sporting moment become taking a free ride on someone else's reputation?

The Brand

Top athletes now manage their names, nicknames and signature gestures as a trade mark portfolio. Chelsea's Cole Palmer, for example, has registered COLD PALMER in the United Kingdom, built on his goal celebration.

Haaland has learned the cost of moving too slowly. In 2022, shortly after his transfer to Manchester City, an unrelated individual filed a European Union trade mark for HAALAND covering goods from clothing to snacks. Haaland's own Norwegian application was initially blocked by that earlier filing. The EUIPO declared the mark invalid for bad faith in 2025, finding it was filed to exploit the attraction of the footballer's name, and that outcome was confirmed on appeal in 2026. Three years of litigation followed what could have been prevented by early filing.

The same risk exists under our Trade Marks Act 194 of 1993. A third party may file for a famous athlete's name long before the athlete thinks of doing so. The athlete can rely on section 10(3), where the applicant has no bona fide claim to proprietorship, and section 10(7), where an application was made in bad faith, either in opposition or in a rectification application. But those remedies are reactive, slow and costly. A timely application in the right classes, typically 25 (clothing), 28 (sporting goods), 32 (beverages) and 41 (sporting and entertainment services), is far cheaper.

Where Registration Runs Out

A trade mark registration protects a sign, not a person. The Norwegian Air image shows the gap: it used no name, no logo and no registered device, only a hairstyle and a wink to the public.

Under section 34(1)(a) and (b) of the Act, infringement requires unauthorised use in the course of trade of a mark identical to, or nearly resembling, the registered mark. Section 34(1)(a) needs the goods or services covered by the registration, and section 34(1)(b) goods or services so similar that deception or confusion is likely. An athlete with registrations in classes 25 and 28 will not easily stop an airline advertising class 39 travel services, particularly where the advertisement never reproduces the mark itself.

Section 34(1)(c) offers wider reach. It protects a registered mark that is well known in the Republic against use that would take unfair advantage of, or be detrimental to, its distinctive character or repute, whatever the goods or services. But it still requires use of an identical or similar mark. After Laugh It Off Promotions CC v South African Breweries International (Finance) BV [2005] ZACC 7, the proprietor must also show a likelihood of substantial economic harm, not merely a tarnished image.

A ponytail on a plane would struggle on every limb. A hairstyle is unlikely to be registered, and even if it were, an evocation of the athlete is not use of the mark as a badge of origin. Persona claims of this kind therefore usually leave the register and turn to the common law.

Beyond the Register: Identity and Passing Off

Our law has no standalone image right, but the common law fills much of the gap. Two routes matter.

The first is the right to identity, protected as a personality interest under the actio iniuriarum. In Grütter v Lombard 2007 (4) SA 89 (SCA), the Supreme Court of Appeal held that using a person's name or identity without consent, in a way that implies an association that does not exist, can be unlawful. Kumalo v Cycle Lab (Pty) Ltd (GSJ, 2011) applied the principle to images. In Kumalo, a well-known personality's photograph used to promote a store opening was held to be an unlawful appropriation of her image for commercial gain.

The key question is whether the advertiser exploited the person's identity for its own commercial benefit. A recognisable likeness, a famous catchphrase or a signature look can be enough, even without a name. Whether a ponytail on an aircraft fuselage, without more, identifies one particular footballer is a question of fact, and probably the heart of the Oslo case.

The second route is passing off. An athlete with a substantial local reputation may argue that an advertisement represents a connection, such as sponsorship or endorsement, that does not exist. The difficulty lies in proving that the public would actually draw that inference, rather than seeing a playful nod to a national hero.

Advertisers should also bear in mind the Code of Advertising Practice, which restricts portraying or referring to identifiable people in advertising without their permission. A complaint to the Advertising Regulatory Board is quicker and cheaper than litigation, and often achieves the practical aim of removing the advertisement.

Riding the Tournament Wave

An airline using a World Cup to sell tickets will sound familiar to local practitioners. In the run-up to the 2010 tournament, kulula.com billed itself as the "Unofficial National Carrier of the You-Know-What", using stadiums, vuvuzelas and national colours without naming the event. FIFA objected and the advertisement was withdrawn. The airline answered with a widely publicised offer of free flights to anyone named Sepp Blatter.

That episode was framed under section 15A of the Merchandise Marks Act 17 of 1941. Once an event is designated a protected event, no one may use a trade mark in relation to it to gain special promotional benefit without the organiser's authority, or create the impression of an association with it.

Two features of section 15A matter here. It protects the event organiser, not the players, and it applies only to events designated by the Minister. An athlete in Haaland's position would have no claim under it. Advertisers, for their part, should not assume that avoiding the tournament's name and logo keeps them safe: allusive campaigns can still fall foul of both the event organiser and the athletes they evoke.

The Norwegian Air dispute shows the second risk. Even a campaign that sidesteps the organiser's rights can collide with an individual's identity rights, and "we were just supporting the team" is a moral argument, not a legal defence.

Practical Lessons

For athletes, agents and clubs:

• File early. Register the athlete's name, nickname and any distinctive logo, signature or celebration device.
• Think beyond merchandise. Cover the classes where endorsements actually happen.
• Monitor the register. A watching service catches opportunistic filings while opposition is still possible, which is far cheaper than rectification.
• Put image rights in writing. Endorsement and club contracts should define the persona being licensed, including likeness and signature looks, and who may enforce it.

For brands and advertisers:

• Check before you launch. Topical campaigns built around a recognisable person need clearance, even if no name or photograph appears.
• Separate celebrating the team from implying endorsement. Generic national pride is safer than evoking a specific player.
• Remember that removal is not a cure. Taking a post down may limit damages, but it does not undo an infringement that has already occurred.

The Oslo court will decide whether a ponytail is enough to identify Erling Haaland. Whatever the outcome, the case shows how far an athlete's commercial identity now extends beyond a registered name.

Trade mark registration remains the foundation. But the most valuable parts of a sporting persona, such as a look, a gesture or a moment of national pride, often sit outside the register. Protecting them requires a combination of early filings, careful contracts and a willingness to rely on the common law. For advertisers, the lesson is just as simple: national heroes belong to everyone in spirit, but not in marketing.

KISCH IP assists clients in identifying, protecting and enforcing valuable intellectual property and personality rights, helping to safeguard the commercial value of brands, reputations and identities.