Law, Judgments & Legal Insights.

Bombay High Court Upholds Injunction Against Film Using " Karan Johar " in Title, Cites Personality and Publicity Rights

Mumbai, India – The Bombay High Court, in a significant ruling on personality and publicity rights, has dismissed an appeal by filmmaker Sanjay Singh , upholding an interim injunction that prevents him and his associates from using the name " Karan Johar " in the title or promotional materials of their film, "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar ” / ”Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar ”.

The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M. S. Karnik , delivered the judgment on May 7, 2025, affirming the Single Judge's order dated March 7, 2025. The court found a prima facie case that the use of the renowned director-producer Karan Johar 's name was an unauthorized attempt to capitalize on his established goodwill and reputation.

Case Background

The dispute arose when Karan Johar (Respondent No.1/original plaintiff) filed a Commercial IPR Suit after discovering the trailer for the film, which was slated for release on June 14, 2024. Johar contended that the use of his name in the film's title was a violation of his personality, publicity, and privacy rights. He argued that his name " Karan Johar " has become a significant brand, associated with a particular genre of cinema, and the appellant's film, described by Johar as "sleazy, B-grade," would tarnish his reputation.

An ad-interim injunction was granted on June 13, 2024, by a Single Judge, restraining the film's release and the use of Johar 's name. The appellant, Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh (original defendant No.2 and co-producer), along with India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (co-producer) and Bablu Singh (writer-director), challenged this injunction, which was later made absolute by the Single Judge on March 7, 2025.

Arguments Presented

Appellant's Contentions ( Sanjay Singh ): * The film title was registered, and a censor certificate was obtained from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). * "Karan" and " Johar " are common names referring to two distinct characters in the film who are aspiring directors. * No individual can claim a monopoly over common names. * The film is fictional and has no connection to Karan Johar 's life or work. * A disclaimer was offered, stating the film's non-association with Karan Johar . * The injunction caused significant financial loss as the film was ready for release.

Respondent's Contentions ( Karan Johar ): * His name " Karan Johar " is a well-established brand with immense goodwill and economic value, particularly associated with grand wedding-themed and family-oriented films. * The conjoint use of "Karan" and " Johar " in the film's title, especially with "Director," directly and unmistakably refers to him. * The appellants aimed to unlawfully ride on his reputation to attract audiences. * The film's nature would damage his brand and associate him with content he does not endorse.

Court's Analysis and Key Findings

The Division Bench, in an opinion authored by Justice M. S. Karnik , meticulously examined the arguments and legal precedents.

On Personality and Publicity Rights: The court reaffirmed the existence and enforceability of personality and publicity rights, referencing the Supreme Court's decision in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy (Retd) vs. Union of India regarding an individual's right to control their identity and its commercial use. The bench stated: > "The Respondent No.1’s name has become a brand name and has obtained a brand value. The names “Karan” “ Johar ” when used together as done by the Appellant in relation to the said film clearly identifies the Respondent No.1... he has the economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion."

The court found that the use of "Karan" and " Johar " together in the film's title, coupled with the word "Director" and the film's plot involving Bollywood film directors, was a "direct reference to only Respondent No.1 and nobody else."

Rejection of Appellant's Arguments:

* Common Names: The court distinguished this, noting, "The name of the Respondent is “ Karan Johar ” and the claim that he widely recognised by this name merits consideration... The contention... that the title of the said film does not identify the name of the Respondent No.1 can only be stated to be rejected."

* CBFC Certification: The bench clarified that CBFC certification does not absolve filmmakers from civil liability for infringing personal rights like personality or publicity rights. It cited Hamdard National Foundation vs. Hussain Dalal , where a film's content was modified despite CBFC certification. > "The CBFC does not examine or evaluate whether the film violates the personal rights, inter alia, trade marks, personality rights, privacy rights or brand name. The remedy of the Respondent No.1 to take action against the violation of his personality or publicity rights is not barred merely because there is a certification of the film by CBFC."

* Disclaimer : A disclaimer was deemed an inadequate remedy for protecting Johar 's rights.

* Adding "Aur": The appellant's suggestion to add "Aur" (and) between "Karan" and " Johar " in the title was considered insufficient to prevent public association with Karan Johar .

The court highlighted evidence such as the film's script referencing "Dharma Productions Private Limited" ( Johar 's company) and interview clips where the appellant was questioned about the direct reference to Johar .

Scope of Injunction: The upheld injunction restrains the appellants from: * Using Karan Johar 's name, attributes, or references (together or in parts) in the film's title, promotion, or any related materials. * Releasing the film on any platform until Johar 's name/attributes are removed from the title. * Using Johar 's name/attributes on websites or social media for promotion. * Mandates removal of Johar 's name/attributes from existing trailers and promotional materials.

Final Decision and Implications

The Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the Single Judge's discretion, citing principles from Wander Limited vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd. that an appellate court should not disturb a discretionary injunction unless it is arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.

> "Having regard to the well considered findings of the learned Single Judge and for the reasons mentioned hereinabove we find no scope to interfere with the impugned order in this Appeal... The exercise of discretion is on well settled sound legal principles."

The appeal was dismissed, solidifying the interim protection granted to Karan Johar . This judgment reinforces the growing jurisprudence on personality and publicity rights in India, particularly for celebrities whose names and personas carry substantial brand value. It serves as a caution to content creators about the unauthorized use of well-known personalities' identities for commercial gain.