## Facts

- Olivia Newton-John, a well-known entertainer with substantial reputation and goodwill, sued Scholl-Plough (Australia) Ltd, a marketer of Maybelline cosmetics.
- Scholl-Plough ran a magazine advertisement featuring a professional model styled to resemble Newton-John and bearing a “considerable likeness” to her.
- The advertisement prominently stated: “Olivia? No Maybelline!”
- The advertisement included copy referring to the “Olivia Look,” including: “For the ‘Olivia Look’ use ‘Blooming Colours’ Neapolitan Frosts eyeshadow.”
- Newton-John alleged the ad exploited her reputation and falsely suggested she approved, endorsed, or was commercially connected with Maybelline products.
- The proceeding was heard at first instance in the Federal Court of Australia before Burchett J; the claim was dismissed.

## Issues

1. Whether the advertisement’s use of a look-alike model and references to “Olivia” and the “Olivia Look” amounted to a misrepresentation that Newton-John endorsed or was associated with the cosmetics, sufficient to establish passing off.
2. Whether exploiting a celebrity’s image and goodwill, without a clear false implication of endorsement or trade connection, is actionable in passing off.

## Decision

- The court dismissed Newton-John’s claim and entered judgment for Scholl-Plough.
- The court held there was no actionable misrepresentation likely to deceive consumers into believing Newton-John endorsed or was commercially connected with the product.
- The headline “Olivia? No Maybelline!” and the advertisement viewed as a whole conveyed that the person depicted was not Newton-John.

## Legal Principles

- Passing off requires (1) reputation or goodwill, (2) a misrepresentation likely to deceive or confuse the public, and (3) damage or likely damage.
- In celebrity endorsement contexts, the decisive question is whether the overall impression of the advertisement falsely implies sponsorship, approval, or a trade connection.
- Mere evocation of a celebrity’s “look” or reputation, without a likely deceptive implication of endorsement, is insufficient for passing off.
- Passing off does not operate as a general proprietary right in personality or fame; it targets deception about commercial connection, not unauthorized “image” use as such.

## Conclusion

The court rejected the passing off claim because the advertisement, assessed in context, did not likely mislead consumers into thinking Olivia Newton-John endorsed or was connected with the cosmetics, confirming that fame and look-alike imagery alone do not establish misrepresentation.


Newton-John v. Scholl-Plough (Austl.) Ltd., 11 F.C.R. 233 (Fed. Ct. Austl. 1986)