SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Bom) 276

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. CHAGLA, J.
Karan Johar - Plaintiff
Versus
India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors. - Defendants
Interim Application (L) No.17865 of 2024 In Comm IPR Suit (L) No.17863 of 2024
Decided On : 07-03-2025

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr.
Parag Khandhar, Ms. Pranita Saboo, Ms. Anaheeta Verma, Ms.
Pratyusha Dhodda and Mr. Shayan Bisney i/b. DSK Legal for the
Plaintiff.
Mr. Ashok Saraogi, with Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sushil Upadhyay, Mr.
Amit Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Ms. Priti Rao for Defendant No.2.

The unauthorized use of a celebrity's name and personality attributes for commercial purposes constitutes an infringement of personality rights, warranting injunctive relief.

Headnote:

(A) Personality Rights - Right to publicity - Commercial exploitation of name and personality attributes - Plaintiff sought injunction against Defendants from using his name in film title and promotional materials - Court recognized Plaintiff's rights as a well-known personality and upheld the principle that unauthorized use of a celebrity's name constitutes infringement. (Paras 6, 10, 41, 60, 77)

(B) Injunction - Criteria for granting - Court found strong prima facie case, balance of convenience in favor of Plaintiff, and potential irreparable harm if relief not granted. (Paras 78, 79)

(C) Censorship Certificate - Court held that obtaining a CBFC certificate does not preclude claims of violation of personality rights. (Paras 71, 72)

Facts of the case:
Plaintiff, a prominent filmmaker, sought an interim injunction against Defendants for using his name in the title of a film, claiming it would harm his reputation and goodwill. Defendants failed to respond to a cease and desist notice.

Findings of Court:
The Court found that the Defendants' use of the Plaintiff's name and attributes in the film title and promotional materials infringed upon the Plaintiff's personality rights and publicity rights.

Issues: The main issues were whether the Defendants' use of the Plaintiff's name constituted an infringement of personality rights and whether the Plaintiff was entitled to an injunction.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court ruled that the Plaintiff's name and personality attributes are protected under personality rights, and unauthorized use for commercial gain constitutes infringement.

Result: Interim Application granted in favor of the Plaintiff.

Table of Content
1. plaintiff seeks injunction (Para 1 , 2)
2. defendants failed to reply (Para 3 , 4 , 5)
3. plaintiff's reputation (Para 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11)
4. plaintiff's claims (Para 12 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 37 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 57 , 58 , 59 , 60 , 61 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 , 67 , 68 , 69 , 70 , 71 , 72 , 73 , 74 , 75 , 76 , 77 , 78)
5. interim application granted (Para 79 , 80)

ORDER :

1. By this Interim Application the Plaintiff is seeking an interim injunction restraining the Defendants from using the name of the Plaintiff “Karan Johar” together, or in parts and from using the attributes of the personality of the Plaintiff in the title of the cinematographic film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” / “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar” (“said film”), in the trailers annexed with the Plaint and in any other promotional materials including that which is posted on social media platforms, website of the Defendants, hoardings / advertisements in public places. The said film is Co- produced by Defendant No.1 and Defendant No. 2 and written and directed by Defendant No.3.

2. The above Commercial IPR Suit had been urgently filed and this Interim Application moved for ad-interim relief, as the said film was scheduled to be released in theaters on the next day of the moving of the application for ad-interim relief i.e. 14th June 2024. The Plaintiff had sought the aforementioned relief in the Interim Application as and by way of ad-interim relief. It was mentioned in the Plaint that on 5th June 2024 to the complete shock and surprise, the Plaintiff had come across the trailer of the said film to be released in theaters on 14th June 2024. A cease and desist notice dated 6th June 2024 was issued by the Plaintiff through its advocates to the Defendants inter alia calling upon the Defendants to immediately cease and desist from using the Plaintiff’s name in the said film, in any manner whatsoever, and to immediately cease and desist from releasing the said film until the Defendants change or remove the title of the said film as set out in the notice.

3. In view of the Defendants failing to reply to the cease and desist notice inspite of the Defendants being served, the present Application was moved for ad-interim relief and by an order dated 13th June 2024, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Interim Application.

4. The Defendants had taken out an application after the passing of the ad-interim order dated 13th June 2024 being Interim Application (L) No.19862 of 2024 under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 seeking vacation of the ad-interim order.

5. By an order dated 22nd July 2024, this Court recorded the submission of Defendant No.2 that the Defendants are not pressing Interim Application (L) No.19862 of 2024, under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the CPC as the present Interim Application may itself be heard and disposed off. This Court had further directed that the Defendant No.2’s Interim Application under Order XXIX Rule 4 in the above Commercial IPR Suit shall be considered as a reply to the present Interim Application and the Affidavit in Reply of the Plaintiff to the Interim Application filed by the Defendant No.2 shall be treated as Affidavit-cum-Rejoinder of the Plaintiff to the present Interim Application.

6. The Plaintiff is a well known personality and is entitled to enforce his “personality” and “publicity” rights. The Plaintiff is a highly credited and leading Indian Director, Producer, Writer Filmmaker and Television Personality primarily working in the media and entertainment industry and is the recipient of several awards and accolades. The Plaintiff has been honoured with Padma Shree, the countries 4th Civilian Award by the Government of India in the year 2020.

7. The Plaintiff has directed and / or produced s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top