Back
2017 Supreme(Mad) 606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
T. RAVINDRAN, J.
Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia - Plaintiff
Vs.
M/s. Power Soaps Limited, Rep. by its Managing Director and Ors. - Defendants
C.S. No. 284 of 2011
Decided On : 07-04-2017
For the Plaintiff : Mr. V. Manohar
For the Defendant : Mr. K. Rajasekaran
The plaintiff must establish a breach of agreement and provide reliable evidence to support claims for damages and injunctions.
Headnote:
Exploitation - Breach of Agreement - 07.10.2008 - [Issue 1: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of damages of Rs.1 Crore for exploitation of her popularity for the business of the first defendant in breach of the agreement dated 7.10.2008? Issue 2: Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of injunction restraining the defendants form publicizing, advertising or using the advertisement materials with her presence in their products, wrappers and sales promotions etc., including advertisement in medias?]
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff, a renowned actress, entered into an agreement with the first defendant to promote their products. After the agreement expired, the plaintiff alleged that the first defendant continued to exploit her images in their advertisements, causing her loss in her film and advertisement business. The plaintiff sought damages of Rs.1 crore and a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff failed to establish that the first defendant exploited her popularity in breach of the agreement. The plaintiff's evidence, including documents Exs.P9, P8, and P7, was deemed unreliable and unacceptable. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to damages or a permanent injunction.
Issues: The issues revolved around the plaintiff's entitlement to damages for exploitation of her popularity and the grant of a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Ratio Decidendi: The plaintiff failed to establish that the first defendant exploited her images in breach of the agreement. The evidence presented by the plaintiff was unreliable and unacceptable, leading to the dismissal of the suit.
Final Decision: The suit was dismissed with costs in favor of the defendants.
The suit is laid by the plaintiff for damages and permanent injunction.
2. The averments contained in the plaint are briefly stated as follows:
The plaintiff is a renowned and popular multi lingual actress and has acted in many popular films and has vast and wide range of fan following. Her profile has high potential value in the current film as well as in the advertisement fields. The defendants approached the plaintiff for promoting the sale of the first defendant's products by appearing as their brand ambassador. In order to utilize her popularity and commercial value attached to the presence of the plaintiff, the defendants offered a honorarium and based upon the discussions, an agreement dated 07.10.2008 was entered into between the plaintiff and the first defendant in the presence of the second defendant and the said agreement was to have effect only for one year, i.e. till 06.10.2009. As per the agreement, the photo shoots of the plaintiff to promote the products of the first defendant had been taken and on account of the plaintiff's presence in the advertisement of the first defendant products, there has been quantum increases many fold of the products of the first defendant and considering the increase in the volume of business of the first defendant, they expressed their intention to continue the agreement for further periods, but the plaintiff refused to give her consent to the same. After the expiry of the above said agreement, the first defendant has no right or consent from the plaintiff to use her appearance in their products or advertisements. However, subsequent to the expiry of the above said agreement, when the plaintiff was approached by M/s. Wipro Ltd. (Consumer Care and Lighting Division) to promote their products (soaps etc.) and the negotiations, with reference to the same, were going on during the last quarter of 2010, to shock and surprise of the plaintiff, it was brought to her knowledge that the first defendant, who is the competitor of M/s. Wipro Ltd., is using the plaintiff's videos and photos for promotion and thereby, exploiting the presence of the plaintiff illegally. Immediately, the plaintiff warned the first defendant orally and the matter was also taken up through the 2nd defendant, who is their authorized agent. Despite the said warnings, the first defendant continued to project the plaintiff's appearance in the commercials of the first defendant in a clandestine manner through multiple channels, materials published in journals and the wrappers used in their products, carried the presence of the plaintiff's photos/profiles and in particular, the soaps manufactured during November 2010 & February 2011. The plaintiff had been thereby put to disadvantage with her other commercials endeavors. Inasmuch as the first defendant did not respond to the oral warnings, the plaintiff issued a notice to the first defendant on 18.01.2011 complaining about the violations and misdeeds committed by them. Again, the plaintiff issued another notice on 01.02.2011 complaining the breach committed by the first defendant. The first defendant gave an evasive reply on 09.02.2011 making untenable allegations and falsely contended that they are not responsible for the exploitations of the plaintiff's appearance in their products. Inasmuch as the first defendant did not mend their way and has continued with exploitation of the plaintiff photo\profile in their commercials and been making unlawful use of the popularity of the plaintiff to their advantage and inasmuch as the plaintiff has also to suffer in her subsequent commercial endeavours with other business concerns, as regards the advertisement fields and as the act of the defendants amounts to invading the privilege and personal right of the plaintiff and despite notices, the first defendant did not take steps to make any corrective measures on their part, the plaintiff has been constrained to lay the suit for adequate compensation and damages in a sum of
