Back
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
R. SUBBIAH, J.
Shivaji Rao Gaikwad
Versus
M/s. Varsha Productions
Application No.735 of 2014 & Civil Suit No. 598 of 2014
Decided on: 03-02-2015
Copyright Act - Section 17 - Trade Marks Act - Section 35 - Specific Performance Act - Section 38 – Civil Procedure Code - Order XXXIX - Rules 1 & 2 - Seeking for grant of interim injunction – Claim of compensation - Permanent injunction - Personality rights by such unauthorized use - A permanent injunction restraining defendant by themselves their Directors principal officers successors-in-business assigns servants agents distributors advertisers or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using Plaintiffs name image caricature style of delivering dialogues in forthcoming project film titled Main or in any of forthcoming projects films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of copyright - A permanent injunction restraining Defendant by themselves their Directors principal officers successors-in-business assigns servants agents distributors advertisers or any one claiming through them from using plaintiffs name image caricature style of delivering dialogues in forthcoming project film titled Main or in any of forthcoming projects films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infiltration of Plaintiffs personality rights by such unauthorized use - A permanent injunction restraining Defendant by themselves their Directors principal officers successors-in-business assigns servants agents distributors advertisers or any one claiming through them from using the plaintiffs name image caricature style of delivering dialogues in forthcoming project film titled or in any of forthcoming projects films content in any manner whatsoever so as to misrepresent and to cause deception in minds of public leading to passing off – Held, It is necessary for character merchandizing that characters to be merchandized must gain some public recognition that is achieved a form of independent life and public recognition for itself independently of original product or independently of milieu area in which it appears - In judgment delivered in Case it has been held by Work Intellectual Property Organizations international agency governing internet domains that an unauthorized use of a famous person’s name is not a bonafide use and if such name is used to lure users it does not confer rights or legitimate interests on infringer and it has been further held that right to commercially use or exploit one’s own name vests with person who has worked to create fame and can lawfully restrict any other third party from exploiting that fame for commercial purposes - From reading of above said judgments it is seen that if any person uses name of a celebrity without his her permission celebrity is entitled for injunction if said celebrity could be easily identified by use of his name by others - As observed earlier in instant case on seeing name in tile of impugned movie persons who are coming across tile of impugned movie are identifying name only with plaintiff herein which is evident from website pages hosted by different persons - Therefore in Court opinion even assuming for a moment that impugned movie is not a biopic of plaintiff since name found in title of impugned movie is identifiable only with plaintiff who happens to be a celebrity and not with any other person defendant is not entitled to use said name without permission of plaintiff celebrity particularly when he had chosen to advertise movie with a title As Sex Worker – Application dismissed
1. This Original Application has been filed by the applicant/plaintiff under Order XIV Rule 8 of the High Court Original Side Rules read with Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of C.P.C., seeking for grant of interim injunction restraining the respondent/defendant, by themselves, their directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertisers or anyone claiming rights through them, from using the applicant's/plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues in the forthcoming project/film titled 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth' or in any of the forthcoming projects/films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infiltration of the applicant's/plaintiff's personality rights by such unauthorised use, pending disposal of the suit.
2. The applicant herein is the plaintiff and the respondent herein is the defendant in the suit. For the sake for convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rankings in the suit.
3. The plaintiff has filed the suit for the following reliefs_
(a) a permanent injunction restraining the defendant by themselves, their Directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents distributors, advertisers or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using the Plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues in the forthcoming project/film titled 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth' or in any of the forthcoming projects/films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infringement of copyright;
(b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves, their Directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertisers or any one claiming through them from using the plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues in the forthcoming project/film titled 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth' or in any of the forthcoming projects/films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infiltration of the Plaintiff's personality rights by such unauthorised use;
(c) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant by themselves, their Directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertisers or any one claiming through them from using the plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues in the forthcoming project/film titled 'Main Hoon Rajinikanth' or in any of the forthcoming projects/films content in any manner whatsoever so as to misrepresent and to cause deception in the minds of public leading to passing off;
(d) the defendant be ordered to remove all references/press releases/videos/posters/advertisements/content/publicity materials containing the Plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues from all websites, television channels, radio channels, newspapers and/or other modes of advertisement in any other modes of electronic and/or print media in respect of its forthcoming project/film titled 'Main Hoon Rajinikath'.
(e) the defendant be directed to pay the plaintiffs as compensatory and punitive damages a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- for unauthorized use of the plaintiff's name/image/caricature/style of delivering dialogues;
(f) for costs of the suit;
4. The case of the plaintiff, in brief, is as follows_
4-1. The plaintiff is a famous and well acclaimed actor in the Indian film industry for the past several decades. The plaintiff is regarded as a cultural icon across the world and has been acknowledged as one of the leading actors in the country. The plaintiff's irrefutable acting ability, charisma, distinct personal style, mannerisms and stylised delivery of dialogue in films have contributed to his mass popularity and appeal. The plaintiff has also been bestowed with several awards nationally and internationally, besides recognition being conferred by various governments and trade bodies for his contribution to the arts and culture. It is further case of the plaintiff that he has been repeatedly referred to as the m
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
