Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2024 Supreme(Bom) 1130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ALOK ARADHE, CJ., M.S. KARNIK, J.
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Karan Johar also known as Rahul Johar - Respondent
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9929 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024 WITH INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10124 OF 2025 IN COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024 IN INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024 IN COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024
Decided on : 07-05-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi a/w Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sushil
Upadhyay, Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Singh, Ms. Priti Rao,
Ms. Kavya Smriti
For the Respondent:Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Rashmin Khandekar, Parag Khandhar, Pranita Saboo, Ms. Anaheeta Verma, Pratyusha Dhoda i/b. DSK Legal

The enforceability of personality and publicity rights protects against unauthorized commercial exploitation of a public figure's name, affirming that such names can constitute intellectual property.

Headnote:(A) Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 13 - Personality rights - Interim injunction granted to prevent unauthorized use of the plaintiff's name and attributes in a film title and promotional materials - Court held prima facie infringement of personality rights and inability of the plaintiff to commercially exploit his name without consent. (Paras 5, 13, 19)

(B) Personality Rights in India - Courts recognize the enforceability of personality and publicity rights, especially for public figures who have established significant goodwill and reputation, qualifying their name as a brand. (Paras 15, 16, 17)

(C) Injunction Principles - Established that the right to privacy and control over personal identity extends to commercial use; the name being integral to personal branding warrants legal protection against unauthorized exploitation. (Paras 10, 18, 24)

Facts of the case:
The appellant challenged an interim order restraining the use of the plaintiff's name in a film titled "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar," asserting his name has become a brand due to his status in the film industry and that unauthorized association with the film would mislead audiences, thus infringing his personality and publicity rights.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the appellant's use of the plaintiff's name was unauthorized and violated the latter's rights, leading to the conclusion that a strong prima facie case was established, warranting protection through an injunction.

Issues: The key issues revolved around the unauthorized use of the plaintiff's name, the validity of personality rights, and whether the injunction was justified given the appellant's arguments against the film's title.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that the intertwining of the characters named "Karan" and "Johar" in the film effectively alludes to the plaintiff, justifying the injunction to protect his well-established celebrity rights from unauthorized exploitation.

Result: Appeal dismissed, interim injunction confirmed.

Table of Content
1. injunction sought regarding film title usage. (Para 1 , 2)
2. rights of the well-known personality. (Para 3 , 4)
3. single judge's findings on personality rights. (Para 5)
4. arguments against the injunction. (Para 6 , 8)
5. court's reference to precedent cases. (Para 9 , 10)
6. privacy rights in publicity contexts. (Para 11 , 12)
7. public figure's reputational rights affirmed. (Para 13 , 14 , 15)
8. economic rights tied to publicity. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19)
9. negative implications of character names. (Para 20 , 21)
10. cbfc certification does not invalidate rights. (Para 22 , 23 , 24)
11. inadequate disclaimer mitigates risk. (Para 25 , 26)
12. court’s discretion in upholding injunction. (Para 27 , 28)
13. final dismissal of appeal. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

M.S.KARNIK, J.

1. The Appellant/original defendant No.2 in this Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenges the order dated 7^th March 2025 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court. Before the learned Single Judge the present Respondent No.1 – original plaintiff filed an Interim Application seeking interim injunction restraining the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the original defendants from using the name of the Respondent No.1 – plaintiff - “Karan Johar” together, or in parts and from using the attributes of the personality of the Respondent No.1 in the title of the cinematographic film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”/”Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar” (“said film” for short), 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 Appellant, hoardings/advertisements in public places. The said film is co- produced by Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2. The said film is written and directed by Respondent No.3 – original defendant No.3.

COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT :-

2. The Commercial IPR Suit was urgently filed before the learned Single Judge as the said film was scheduled to be released in theatres on the next day when the application for ad-interim relief was moved i.e. 14^th June 2024. The Plaint proceeds on the footing that on 5^th June 2024, to the complete shock and surprise of the Respondent No.1, he came across the trailer of the said film to be released in theatres on 14th June 2024. A cease and desist notice dated 6^th June 2024 was issued by the Respondent No.1 through his advocates to the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 inter alia calling upon them to immediately cease and desist from using the Respondent No.1’s name in the said film in any manner whatsoever, and to immediately cease and desist from releasing the said film until the Appellant changes or removes the title of the said film as set out in the notice. In view of the Appellant failing to reply to the cease and desist notice despite service, the application was moved by Respondent No.1 for ad-interim reliefs. By an order dated 13^th June 2024 the learned Single Judge granted ad-interim reliefs in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Interim Application.

3. The Appellant filed an application under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for vacating the ad-interim order. The application made for vacating the ad-interim order was treated as a reply and the Interim Application filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be heard by the learned Single Judge. The case of the Respondent No.1 as set out in the Plaint is as under :-

The Respondent No.1 is a well known personality and is entitled to enforce his “personality” and “publicity” rights. The Respondent No.1 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 Respondent No.1 has been honoured with Padma Shree, the countries 4^th highest Civilian Award by the Government of India in the year 2020. The Respondent has directed and/or pr