P.C:

1 By the present Suit, the Plaintiff has inter-alia sought the protection of his personality rights, his right to privacy and right to live with dignity guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India and also the protection of his moral rights under the Copyright Act, 1957. The Plaintiff asserts that his stated rights are being infringed and violated by unauthorized use and commercial exploitation and misrepresentation on different social media platforms and over the internet by various parties some of whom are arrayed as Defendants to the suit and by certain unknown entities presently found as Ashok Kumar / Jon Doe.

2 The Plaintiff has in the plaint set out that the Plaintiff is a renowned Indian film actor, producer and public figure with a career in the Indian film industry spanning over three decades. In Paragraph No. 21 of the plaint, the Plaintiff has given a list of nearly 100 films in which he has acted and is widely known for his performances in commercially successful and critically acclaimed films such as “Balwaan”, “Mohra”, “Dilwale”, and “Border”, Main Hoon Na and the film “Hera Pheri” in which the Plaintiff played the iconic and popular character of “Shyam”, a role which continues to enjoy enduring public recognition, attention and goodwill.

3 The Plaintiff in Paragraph 22 of the Plaint set out the various awards and honors received by the Plaintiff, including the Filmfare Award for Best Villain for his performance in the film “Dhadkan” and the Best Supporting Actor for the same film. The Plaintiff has also been the recipient of the Stardust Award for Best Actor for the film “Red Alert” and the Global Indian Film Award for the Best Negative Role for the film “Main Hoon Na”. More recently in 2023 the Plaintiff’s relevance and style has been acknowledged through awards such as the Lokmat Stylish Timeless Icon Award and the IWM Digital Awards for his performances on OTT platforms, including in “Dharavi Bank.” It is basis this that the Plaintiff has contended that the Plaintiff is well known and established film Actor and also a respected public figure.

4 The plaint also sets out that given that the Plaintiff’s immense public standing and public image, the Plaintiff has been named as brand

Ambassador for several reputed national and international brands, the details of which are more particularly set out in paragraph 24 of the plaint. Thus, the Plaintiff has also commercially benefited from his personality rights and public standing.

5 The Plaint also set out the Plaintiff’s huge following on social media. For instance, the Plaintiff has over 5.4 million followers on Instagram; 6.5 million followers on Facebook; 1.2 million followers on X Corp and approximately 9,96,043 followers on LinkedIn, which establishes that the Plaintiff has a vast following on diverse social media platforms which underscores the significant public recognition and extensive goodwill of the Plaintiff. This vast digital footprint serves to demonstrate the continuing and widespread public association with the Plaintiff, thereby reinforcing the distinctiveness and exclusive association of his indicia, including his name and persona, in the public mind.

6 Dr. Birendra Saraf, Learned Senior Counsel, appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff highlighted the aforesaid and submitted that the personality of the Plaintiff including his name, his signature, his image and his likeness, his voice and tone, his distinctive performance and mannerisms and similar other attributes have become uniquely associated with the Plaintiff. He submits that the Plaintiff has a right to control and protect the exploitation of his personality in addition to the commercially benefit and gain from the same. Any use of the Plaintiff’s personality identity or attributes of the Plaintiff’s personality without the Plaintiff’s consent or authorization apart

from being an infringement of the Plaintiff’s personality rights is also a violation of the Plaintiff’s fundamental right