How athletes are protecting their brand identity against commercial & AI‑driven misuse

Athletes are increasingly turning to trade marks to protect their personal brand assets — a shift driven by expanding commercial opportunities and growing concerns about AI‑generated deepfakes. Darts player Luke Littler is the latest to file a UK trade mark application to protect his likeness, adding to existing protection for his name and nickname, ‘The Nuke’.

This move reflects a wider trend across sport. Chelsea and England midfielder Cole Palmer has secured protection for his nickname ‘Cold Palmer’, full name, facial likeness, signature and ‘shivering’ celebration as a registered motion mark. Many leading athletes — from David Beckham and Cristiano Ronaldo to Usain Bolt and Kylian Mbappé — have taken similar steps, including protecting iconic celebrations and other distinctive elements of their identity.

Together, these developments show how personal branding has become a core part of modern athletic careers, with trade marks now central to safeguarding commercial identity in an increasingly digital and AI‑driven environment.

Here, Hannah Fawcett and Emily Rickard explore how athletes are using trade marks to safeguard their identity, outline the legal standards that they must meet and break down the commercial lessons emerging from this shift.

Expanding approaches to athlete identity protection

Using motion marks to protect distinctive gestures

In protecting his shivering gesture, Palmer became the first footballer to secure a motion mark in the UK for a sports celebration. This type of protection only became realistically achievable after the 2018 amendment to the Trade Marks Act removed the requirement for “graphical representation”, making it far easier to register non‑traditional marks such as motion, sound, hologram and shape marks. Toshiba was the first organisation to benefit from the change, securing a multimedia motion mark in 2019.

His registration now sets a precedent for other athletes to consider which aspects of their personal brand may be capable of commercial exploitation and worth protecting. However, the requirement of “distinctiveness” still applies — and in some cases it can be a high threshold to meet. 

To be accepted by the UK IPO, a motion mark must:

1. Be precisely represented: it has to be shown in a way that clearly defines what movement is protected — for example, Palmer submitted a video of himself performing the celebration. The representation must allow authorities and the public to understand exactly what’s being claimed.
2. Be capable of functioning as a trade mark: the movement must be something that the average consumer would view as identifying a single commercial source, not just a decorative, celebratory, descriptive or a commonplace gesture. Applications must prove that the relevant public perceives the motion as exclusively indicative of the athlete’s commercial origin — an issue that remains untested in enforcement.
3. Be distinctive (inherently or through strong evidence): most movements aren’t inherently distinctive, so applicants usually rely on acquired distinctiveness. The UK IPO allows this but the evidential threshold is demanding. Applicants must prove consistent, exclusive commercial use and consumer recognition linking the motion specifically to them.
4. Not be commonly used by others: even if an applicant can show distinctiveness, the motion must also be sufficiently uncommon. If a gesture is widely used or has well‑known parallels, it becomes harder to show that consumers associate it with a single commercial source. For example, Trae Young’s ‘Ice Trae’ celebration could have weakened Palmer’s position had it been widely recognised in the UK. Importantly, protection only covers commercial use of the motion as branding. Registration wouldn’t stop others from performing the gesture in sport — it would only prevent unauthorised commercial exploitation.
5. Have a stable, narrowly defined scope: a motion mark can’t be defined in broad or conceptual terms. The movement has to be a specific, consistent sequence that doesn’t change depending on context or interpretation. The claim must set clear boundaries around what’s protected so examiners, competitors and the public can understand exactly which movement is covered and where the protection ends.
    

With his registered motion mark, Palmer now has stronger legal control over the commercial use of his shivering celebration, allowing him to license it, generate new revenue streams, protect his image from unauthorised commercial exploitation and more easily enforce his rights against infringing third parties — all without preventing others from performing the celebration itself. 

Safeguarding likeness in the age of deepfakes

Luke Littler’s recent filing to protect his likeness comes at a time when deepfakes have become embedded in sports culture. Athletes, managers and clubs are routinely targeted by fabricated interview clips, manipulated press‑conference footage and synthetic announcement images. These creations spread quickly across social media, often blurring the line between parody, satire and misleading content — and, in some cases, being mistaken for genuine endorsements.

This environment is driving athletes to secure clearer legal boundaries around how their identity can be used. Cole Palmer’s broader portfolio reflects the same shift: athletes are no longer relying solely on name protection but are safeguarding likeness, gestures and other distinctive elements of their persona to limit unauthorised commercial use.

While trade marks can’t eliminate deepfakes, they do strengthen an athlete’s position when AI‑generated content crosses into commercial exploitation or falsely implies endorsement. In a digital environment where an athlete’s identity can be replicated and repurposed across anything from apparel to digital assets, robust and commercially grounded trade mark strategies are becoming essential tools for modern brand protection.

The new era of athlete trade mark protection after SkyKick

As athletes expand the scope of what they protect, many are filing trade marks that cover increasingly broad ranges of goods and services. Littler’s and Palmer’s portfolios both span numerous classes, including apparel, jewellery, toys, technology, accessories and beverages. In Palmer’s case, the breadth of his nickname application even prompted opposition from Bordeaux producer Château Palmer, leading him to exclude wine from the specification.

While it’s not uncommon to file across a wide range of goods and services to keep future commercial options open, the UK Supreme Court’s decision in Sky v SkyKick (2024) (SkyKick) has prompted the UK Intellectual Property Office (UK IPO) to tighten scrutiny. 

The judgment significantly reshaped UK trade mark law by making it easier to challenge registrations with overly broad or inappropriate specifications. The Supreme Court confirmed that a trade mark can be partly invalidated for bad faith where an applicant never genuinely intended to use the mark for all the goods and services claimed. It ultimately lowers the threshold for proving bad faith and increases the likelihood of invalidity actions against filings that appear defensive or even anticompetitive in scope. 

Under the UK IPO’s Practise Amendment Notice 1/25, applicants are now required to justify very wide specifications and bad faith objections may be raised where claims appear to be “manifestly and self-evidently broad”. The UK IPO can require commercial justification from the applicant who must explain the rationale for their broad application or narrow the specification of goods and services. 

Commercial lessons for protecting athlete identity

A well-structured IP portfolio can assist athletes in preserving and protecting their personal brand assets, enabling long-term commercial exploitation across a range of goods and services and providing avenues to minimise counterfeiting and false endorsement.

Palmer’s and Littler’s expansion of their portfolios beyond protection of names illustrates a strategic and solid approach to athlete brand building. 

For athletes looking to take a similarly considered approach to IP protection, key steps include:

1. Identifying key personal brand elements early.
2. Registering strategically, being mindful of the SkyKick decision and the need for commercially defensible specifications.
3. Anticipating challenges and adapting.
4. Exploring non‑traditional marks like celebrations if distinct to the individual athlete.
5. Building a long-term commercial identity beyond sport.
6. Establishing monitoring and takedown protocols on platforms where deepfake sports content commonly circulates (e.g. TikTok, Instagram and YouTube).
7. Collaborating with clubs, federations and agents to respond quickly to fraudulent or misleading AI-generated content.
   
    

Talk to us

Our expert intellectual property team helps athletes to turn their identity into a secure, commercially valuable asset. We identify what elements of your brand are protectable, prepare trade mark filings that stand up to post‑SkyKick scrutiny and manage clearance, opposition and enforcement as your profile grows.

We also protect digital identity in an era of deepfakes, from preventing unauthorised commercial use of your likeness to monitoring online platforms and coordinating rapid takedowns when misuse occurs.

Our service covers the full lifecycle of your rights — from strategy and registration to commercialisation, licensing and dispute resolution. We advise on portfolio development, IP audits, clearance searches and enforcement across trade marks, designs, patents, copyright, confidential information and know‑how.

Talk to our team by calling 0333 004 4488, emailing hello@brabners.com or completing our contact form below.