From Bollywood to Courts: Protecting Celebrities’ Identity Rights – Karan Johar’s case

INTRODUCTION

The Bollywood filmmaker and producer Mr. Karan Johar has filed a case against  the makers of the upcoming movie “Shaadi ke Director Karan aur Johar” in the Bombay High Court. Because the makers were  using his name in the title of the movie without his consent. As he believed that using his name without his consent is a violation of his personality rights. He moved to court to protect his personality rights the same other famous personalities did earlier. Personalities like Jackie Shroff, Amitabh Bachchan, Rajinikanth etc…

The case was initiated by DSK Legal, a lawsuit was filed against writer/director Bablu Singh, producer of IndiaPride Advisory Pvt Ltd, and actor Sanjay Singh.

Karan Johar filed the case to stop the defendants from using his name in the title of the movie, along with a request for a restraining order and permanent injunction.

Keywords: Personality Rights, Right to Privacy, Right to Publicity, Unauthorized Use, Celebrity Endorsement, Legal Precedents, Bollywood Lawsuits, Film Title Dispute, Commercial Exploitation, Court Judgments,Injunctions, Defamation, Intellectual Property

BRIEF OF THE CASE

FACTS

In this case the Plaintiff filed a case against Defendants because they used his name in their upcoming movie without the Plaintiff’s consent. Plaintiff said that the use of his name in the movie’s title and promotions either direct or indirect, is proof that the Defendant has done exploitation of his personality rights, including his rights to privacy. The Defendants did not appear in court or responded to notice from the legal team, even after getting many remainders. By referring to the precedents that protect celebrities’ rights under different laws, like trademark act, copyright act etc.. , the plaintiff asks for temporary injunctions to stop the defendants from using his name in any manner related to the film. The court found the plaintiff’s arguments valid and in result, provided him ad-interim relief to protect his reputation.

PARTIES INVOLVED

  • Plaintiff: Karan Johar (Also known as Rahul Kumar Johar)
  • Defendant: Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. & Ors.

FACT IN ISSUE

  • Whether the use of plaintiff’s name in the title of the movie and in promotional materials by the Defendants amount to violation of his personality rights?
  • Whether the Defendants’ actions are likely to create confusion in the public, that plaintiff is associated with or endorses the film?
  • Whether the Plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case justifying the grant of ad-interim relief in the form of injunctions?

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES

  • Plaintiff: Plaintiff contended that the Defendants’ use of his name in the movie’s title and promotional materials infringes upon his rights to privacy, publicity, and protection against unapproved commercial exploitation, among other aspects of his identity. Also contends that doing so would lead people to mistakenly associate Plaintiff with or approve of the movie and asserts that the Defendants’ use is unlawful and motivated by a malicious desire to capitalize on his celebrity for personal financial benefit, a claim bolstered by their inaction in the face of legal notices.
  • Defendant: The defendants contended that their use of Plaintiff ‘s name in the movie title satisfies their rights to free speech and expression. They can claim that there isn’t any proof or chance of people becoming confused about the plaintiff’s involvement with the movie. They also argue that they are paying tribute to the Plaintiff or using his name creatively, they have no malicious intention of using his popularity for any financial advantage.

 DECISION

The plaintiff’s case was decided in his favor, the court granted him ad-interim relief in the form of temporary injunctions against the defendants. The court finds that Johar has presented a strong first case for the protection of his personality rights. It was determined that the Defendants’ use of Johar’s name in the film’s title and promotional materials most likely violated his rights to privacy, publicity, and protection from unauthorized commercial exploitation.

The para 14 and 18 in the recent order dated 13 june 2024, states:

  1. “The Plaintiff is seeking protection of his personality rights as also protection of his privacy. The Defendants by making an unauthorized / unlawful use of Plaintiff’s name and the personal attributes of Plaintiff inter alia his name and his profession, have in my prima facie view violated the personality rights, right to publicity and right to privacy of the Plaintiff.”
  2. 18. “It is made clear that the ad-interim relief which has been granted shall apply to existing use of the Plaintiff’s name or any attributes of the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever.”

CASES CITED BY KARAN JOHAR’S ADVOCATE

  • Shivaji Rao Gaikwad Vs. Varsha Productions

The first case cited by plaintiff’s advocate Mr. Zal Andhayarujina, was this case. In this case The Madras High Court acknowledged the evolution of privacy rights into publicity rights in a case involving actor Rajnikant. It was confirmed that a person’s name, character traits, and other unique characteristics are protected under these rights. The court rejected arguments that the term “Rajnikant” is popular and does not specifically pertain to the plaintiff, emphasizing that personality rights belong to people who have achieved celebrity status.

  • Anil Kapoor Vs. Simply Life India and Ors.

The other case on which plaintiff’s advocate relied on. In this case, The Delhi High Court determined that by using Anil Kapoor’s picture in an advertisement without getting his permission, the defendants had infringed his right to publicity. The court stressed the necessity for agreement when utilizing a celebrity’s likeness for business reasons, ruling that this unapproved commercial usage violated Kapoor’s statutory and common law rights.

  • Arun Jaitley Vs. Network Solutions Private Ltd. & Ors.

This case was used in the context of defamation of plaintiff by the defendant, in this case The Delhi High Court provided the decision in favour of the plaintiff because the defendants had posted defamatory information about him on their website. The court imposed injunctions to stop further distribution and ordered the removal of the defamatory content.

  • Titan Industries Ltd. Vs. M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers

This case involves passing off and trademark infringement. The court determined that M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers had caused confusion among customers by using a similar mark on their jewelry products, infringing against Titan Industries’ trademark. The court mandated that M/s. Ramkumar Jewellers pay Titan Industries damages and issued an injunction prohibiting them from using the infringing mark. The ruling stressed the significance of avoiding consumer misunderstanding in the marketplace and upheld trademark protection against illegal usage.

All the above mentioned cases were used to deal with the particular aspects of the case, whether it is personality & rights or passing off & trademark infringement all got covered. The decisions given in these cases by respective courts work as precedent in this case.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion, the ruling in Karan Johar’s case by the Bombay High Court highlights how crucial it is to defend the right to one’s individuality, especially for well-known people like Johar whose name and reputation are essential to their sense of self in the public eye. Ad-interim remedy in the form of temporary injunctions was granted by the court, which is indicative of a strong defense of Johar’s rights to publicity, privacy, and protection against unapproved commercial exploitation. The mentioned court rulings from different Indian courts reinforce the idea that these rights need to be recognized and maintained, guaranteeing impartiality and clarity in situations involving the use of prominent people’ identities.

REFERENCES

AUTHOR: Ms. Pragati Tomar, pursuing B.A. LL.B. from Prestige Law College, Gwalior