Back
2026 Supreme(Del) 382
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.
Mr. Allu Arjun – Plaintiff
Versus
Frankly Retail Private Limited & Ors. – Defendants
CS(Comm) 403 of 2026
Decided On : 17-04-2026
For the Plaintiff :Ms. Swathi Sukmar, Sr. Advocate with, Ms. Ameet Datta, Ms. Riggima Sharma, Ms. Bidushi Handique Lale, Mr. Mukul Kochhar, Ms. Gauri Khanna, Mr. Ritil Raghuwani, Advocates.
For the Defendants :Mr. Shubh Kapoor, Mr. Anirudh Dusaj and Ms. Bhavyah Garg, Advocates for defendant no. 1. Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Sana Banyal and Ms. Nivedita Sundheer, Advocates for defendant no. 7. Mr. Aditya Gupta, Mr. Asavari Jain and Mr. Rohith Venkatesan, Advocates for defendant no. 8.
The court affirmed the protection of personality rights, allowing an ex-parte injunction against unauthorized exploitation of an individual's identity and trademarks by third parties.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XI Rule 1(4), Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Ex-parte interim injunction - Plaintiff, a well-known actor, sought injunction against unauthorized commercial exploitation of his name, image, and trademarks by defendants - Court found sufficient documentary evidence and granted injunction to prevent irreparable harm. (Paras 17, 31, 38)
(B) Exemption from notice - Court permitted exemption from serving advance notice to Government entities based on urgency and exemption criteria outlined. (Paras 4, 5)
(C) Discovery and document inspection - Application for discovery granted with notice issued to defendants for replies. (Paras 13, 14)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff filed multiple applications under CPC seeking leave to file additional documents, exemptions from notice, and interim relief against defendants for unauthorized uses of his identity and trademarks.
Findings of Court:
The court found a prima facie case in favor of the plaintiff, establishing retention of rights over his distinctive persona and trademark registrations.
Issues: The primary issue addresses the plaintiff's rights concerning the unauthorized exploitation of his persona and identity by the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the plaintiff demonstrated a strong case for protection of his personality and publicity rights, balancing the convenience in favor of the plaintiff to prevent irreparable loss.
Result: Ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted against the defendants.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. plaintiff allowed to file additional documents. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. exemption applications processed and allowed. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 3. plaintiff's achievements and reputation established. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 30 , 31) |
| 4. plaintiff establishes prima facie case against defendants. (Para 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 38) |
| 5. injunction and further measures against defendants. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 6. procedure for service and pleadings established. (Para 44 , 45 , 46 , 47 , 48 , 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
ORDER
(Additional Documents)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC Act’) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10530/2026 (Exemption)
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 80(2) read with Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from serving advance notice to the Government of India/Defendant nos.10 & 11 alongwith supporting affidavit.
5. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. For the reasons stated therein, plaintiff is exempted from serving notice Defendant nos.10 & 11 in advance, at this stage.
6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10531/2026 (Exemption)
7. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of the CPC, seeking exemption from filing clearer copies of documents and translated copies of vernacular language documents.
8. Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions. Let clearer copies of documents and translated copies of vernacular language documents be filed within two weeks from date.
9. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10532/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
10. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.
11. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi : (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.
12. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10533/2026 (for seeking discovery, production & inspection of Defendants’ documents)
13. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rules 1, 3 and 5 of the CPC as amended by the CC Act read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking discovery, production and inspection of the Defendants’ documents.
14. Issue notice.
15. Let the reply to the application be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
I.A. 10528/2026 (Stay)
16. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.
17. The plaintiff claims to be a well known Indian film actor who primarily works in the Telugu film industry. He claims to be popularly known as the “Icon Star” of Tollywood i.e. The Telugu Film Industry on the basis that he is one of the prominent, well recognised, well respected and commercially successful actors in India. One of his attributes claimed to be loved by the fans is his dynamic performances and exceptional dancing skill.
18. Plaintiff claims to hail from a family associated with the Indian film industry for several decades. His father is stated to be a film producer, film distributor and businessman and his paternal grandfather was a legendary actor, comedian and producer in Telugu cinema having appeared in over 1000 Telugu films. Plainti
