From Law wiki, the wiki for law research

(1879) 12 Ch D 261. Under the principle oftupper v hill (1863), a right over another person's land cannot amount to an Easement unless the right benefits the land, not the person. However, this does not mean that all rights that amount to a commercial benefit are precluded from being easements. In this case, the right claimed was the right to hang a pub sign over another person's land. This was held to be capable of amounting to an easement. Signs are a traditional and important part of the character of public houses, and therefore benefit the property, not its owner. Of course, the distinction between this case and Tupper is a fine one.