The has issued a safeguarding the of veteran actor Amitabh Bachchan, effectively concluding a comprehensive that addressed widespread unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name, image, voice, and persona. In a judgment delivered on , the Court granted relief across two categories of defendants: those who entered into a formal settlement and those who failed to contest the proceedings, alongside a standing order against anonymous entities. This decision marks a significant development in the judicial recognition of celebrity , solidifying the protections afforded to high-profile figures against commercial in the digital age.
The litigation, which originated in , targeted a diverse range of infringements, including the operation of unauthorized mobile applications, the circulation of fraudulent lottery scams using the actor's photograph via messaging platforms, the sale of unlicensed merchandise, and the illicit registration of domain names. The provides a robust framework for preventing future misuse, as the Court ordered that the injunction would bind the defendants, their legal heirs, representatives, and business assigns.
Collaborative Settlements Resolve Key Infringement Disputes
A core component of the Court’s resolution involved a formal settlement reached between the plaintiff and several defendants, including those responsible for developing the "Amitabh Bachchan Video Call" application, publishing a general knowledge quiz book featuring his image, selling posters of his likeness, and registering domain names associated with his identity. During the proceedings, these defendants acknowledged the actor’s publicity and privacy rights, committing to permanently cease any use of his persona without express permission.
Under the terms of the settlement, defendant no. 1 confirmed the deletion of the mobile application in question, while other commercial entities—specifically those engaged in the publication of quiz materials and the sale of wall posters—formally committed to discontinuing these unauthorized commercial products. Defendant no. 8, who held the domain name , verified that the domain had already been deleted in late and stated that no monetary gains were derived from the registration.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, in approving this settlement under
, observed that the terms were clearly defined and legally sound. The Court noted,
"The settlement has been agreed upon without fear or coercion, and the parties appear to have entered into it on their own volition. Nothing has been pointed out which would render it void or voidable under the
."
By incorporating these terms into a
, the Court ensured that the parties remain contractually and legally bound to these pledges, providing the plaintiff with a durable safeguard against recurrent violations by these specific entities.
Judicial Intervention Against Unresponsive Digital Infringers
The Court further exercised its authority under to issue a judgment against defendants who failed to file or appear before the Court despite being served with . These entities included those involved in the dissemination of lottery scams and other unauthorized online activities. Noting that the right to file had been closed since , the Court determined that no further trial or evidence was required, as the facts surrounding the unauthorized use of the actor's persona were clear and undisputed.
Crucially, the Court’s decision extended the protection against defendants, recognizing the challenge posed by anonymous actors who operate across the internet through a variety of platforms. By including the John Does in the final , the Court has provided a prospective shield that allows for broader enforcement against any future instances of anonymous . This approach reflects an understanding of the evolving nature of digital intellectual property threats, where the perpetrator’s identity may be obscured, but the harm caused by the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s image remains tangible.
Defining the Limits of
The judicial reasoning for this final was heavily grounded in the evolving jurisprudence concerning the control of human identity for commercial purposes. Referring to the precedent set in
, the Court reiterated the essential elements required to establish a violation of
. It held that the core of the issue rests on two pillars:
"Validity: The plaintiff owns an enforceable right in the identity or persona of a human being"
and
"Identifiability: The Celebrity must be identifiable from defendant’s unauthorized use."
Justice Kaurav emphasized that both these conditions were squarely met in the present case.
"The right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity,"
the Court observed, noting that the defendants’ activities—specifically the unauthorized use of the actor’s photograph and name for commercial gain—constituted a false suggestion of endorsement that misled the public. The decision also drew support from the
, which empower the Court to move for
where no disputed questions of fact require a full trial.
By merging the initial interim injunction with this final , the High Court has effectively institutionalized the protections for the actor’s . The order serves as both a remedial action for past infringements and a preventative measure, with the Court explicitly granting the plaintiff liberty to institute fresh proceedings should any new cause of action arise. With the final orders issued and the sheet ordered to be drawn up by the Registry, the matter is now formally closed, with all named and identified infringers held accountable under the permanent mandate.
commercial use - publicity rights
