By Shilpi Saurav Sharan and Swayamsiddha Das
Introduction
There is a saying that “coming events cast their shadows before” and there was a premonition that it was not the last when Anil Kapoor sought protection of his IP and Personality Rights. Following the footsteps of his fellow actor in securing his IP rights, cine star Jackie Shroff has recently filed a suit against perpetrators for infringing his IP and Personality Rights wherein once again, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court recently in the case of Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors, [1]has restrained the Defendants from infringing the actor’s personality rights.
What are Personality Rights?
The concept of personality rights encompasses the right of a person to regulate and control the unauthorized use of their personality attributes such as name, image, voice, likeness, etc.[2]
In the absence of a specific law, the Courts rely on precedents and judicial interpretations when protecting the rights of celebrities. The 1995 case of R.Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu[3], also known as the Auto Shankar case, is one of the early cases that recognized the rights entrusted in personality rights. In this landmark case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India held that “the general law of privacy which affords a tort action for damages resulting from an unlawful invasion of privacy and the constitutional recognition given to the right to privacy which protects personal privacy against unlawful governmental invasion. The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person’s name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising or non-advertising purposes or for that matter, his life story is written whether laudatory or otherwise and published without his consent as explained hereinafter.”
In similar lines, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers[4], defined the term “celebrity” and held that a celebrity is “a famous or a well-known person and is merely a person who “many” people talk about or know about” while also opining that “the right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity.”
In the very recent case of Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors[5], the Plaintiff (Actor Jackie Shroff) filed a suit against the Defendants for violation of Personality Rights. Given the nature of the profession the Plaintiff contends that his personality, name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms, gestures, and other uniquely identifiable characteristics associated with him and further contends that the Plaintiff exercises exclusive control over the above-mentioned attributes which constitute his ‘personality rights’ and ‘publicity rights.’
Furthermore, the Plaintiff claims to have obtained registrations for marks “BHIDU” and ‘Bhidu ka khopcha” under multiple classes and claimed that his personal name “JACKIE SHROFF” along with other names such as “Jackie”, “Jaggu Dada” and “Bhidu” are immediately and uniquely associated with him and no one else. The Plaintiff has filed the present suit against the Defendants (both identified and unidentified) for using allowing users to search and share GIF files exploiting the Plaintiff’s image, likeness and name, offering ringtones and wallpapers featuring Plaintiff’s image without authorization. It was also claimed by the Plaintiff that the compilation video of Plaintiff’s interview titled “Thug Life” portraying the Plaintiff with sunglasses/caps/cigarettes/gold chains other animated images/gifs along with other photo-shopped elements is derogatory and infringes personality rights of Plaintiff. Aggrieved by the acts of the Defendant the Plaintiff had filed the suit against them.
| Application Number | Class | Mark | Status |
| 3227968 | Class 25 (Ready-made garments, hosiery, articles of clothing shirts; jeans, cotton trouser, garments included in class25 | BHIDU | Registered |
| 3227969 | Class 41 (Entertainment, Education, Providing of Training, Film Production, Sporting And Cultural Activities, Playschool, Nursery And Kindergarten School, Event Organization And Management included in Class 41). | BHIDU | Registered |
| 4362494 | Class 41 (Education; Providing of Training; Entertainment; Sporting And Cultural Activities As Covered Under Class 41) | Bhidu ka khopcha | Registered |
Upholding the rights of the Plaintiff the Hon’ble Delhi High Court after examining the Defendant’s activities opined that “the activities of the Defendant constitute an infringement of personality rights of the Plaintiff and provides the general public with the impression that the Plaintiff is endorsing or indulged into activities promoted by the Defendants and passed an injunction order against the Defendants restraining them from using violating personality rights by utilizing/exploiting/misappropriating the Plaintiff’s name ‘JACKIE SHROFF” and other sobriquets including “JACKIE”, “JAGGU DADA”, voice; image; for any commercial purpose without the Plaintiff’s consent and/or authorization”.
However, the Hon’ble Court after examining the compilation interview video titled “Thug Life” on YouTube did not pass an injunction order against Defendant No. 5 and held that “the usage of the term ‘Thug Life’ is meant as a compliment and not a derogatory word and observed that the YouTube video compiles publicly available interview clips where Plaintiff is portrayed with forthrightness and wit” the Hon’ble Delhi High Court further opined that the “additions made by the Defendant No.5 such as the usage of Thug Life caption along with visual embellishments highlight the Plaintiff’s bold personality that aligns with the meme culture hence restricting such creative expressions by a way of blocking and removing videos on the internet can set a precedent that stifles freedom of expression”
As observed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors[6], actor Anil Kapoor (Plaintiff) filed a suit against the Defendants for utilizing Deepfake Technology and Artificial Intelligence and representing Plaintiff as actresses in a derogatory and offensive manner, using Plaintiff’s generative Artificial Intelligence as a Disney Character, Morphing Plaintiff’s face and seeking payments from customers etc.,[7] The Hon’ble Delhi High Court took cognizance of the case and passed an ex-parte injunction order against the Defendant restraining them from using Plaintiff’s “name, likeness, image, voice, personality or any other aspects of his persona to create any merchandise, ringtones, ring back tones, or in any other manner misuse the said attributes using technological tools such as Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, deep fakes, face morphing, GIFs either for monetary gains or otherwise to create any videos, photographs, etc., for commercial purposes, so as to result in violation of the Plaintiff’s personality rights“.
Similarly in the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.,[8] the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed an omnibus interim injunction order restraining the Defendants at large from infringing the personality and publicity rights of Plaintiff by misusing his name ‘Amitabh Bachchan’/ ‘bachchan’/AB/BigB’, his voice, image or any other attribute which is exclusively identifiable with him for any commercial gains.
Yuvraj Singh invokes Arbitration clause to protect Personality Rights
Obtaining an injunction order against the miscreants from violating the personality rights is one handy option available to the celebrities for protecting their personality, however if there is a contract/agreement in place for exploiting these rights by third parties, then in that case, celebrities have the right to invoke the arbitration clause if a party continues to exploit the personality right after the expiry of such contract/agreement.
In a very recent case, former Indian Cricketer Yuvraj Singh has issued legal notice, invoking the Arbitration clause, against a Delhi based Real Estate firm for violation of his privacy, personality rights and misuse of Brand Value by using his photographs on billboards, project site, social media etc., for commercial purpose after the expiry of the MoU.[9]
Conclusion
Personality Rights have become an increasingly important issue in today’s world. Celebrities have become more vigilant and are trying to protect their personality rights like name, images, voice and likeness from being exploited by miscreants for commercial gains. While the courts have recognized the importance of protecting the personality rights of celebrities by establishing precedents, there is a need of statutory framework that address the issue at hand.
[1] CS(COMM) 389/2024
[3] 1994 SCC (6) 632
[4] CS(OS) No.2662/2011
[5] CS(COMM) 389/2024
[6] Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors CS(COMM) 652/2023
[7] Para 29. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors CS(COMM) 652/2023
[8] CS(COMM) 819/2022