Judgment Emphasized the Protection of Celebrity Personality and Publicity Rights – Restriction Imposed on the Unauthorized Commercial Exploitation of Karan Johar’s Name

The judgment reaffirmed the legal protection of personality and publicity rights, holding that well-known individuals have the right to prevent unauthorized commercial use of their identity. The Court granted the Plaintiff an injunction against the Defendants, restraining the release and promotion of the film using the contested title and references.

The Court held that: a) The Plaintiff possesses enforceable personality and publicity rights due to his celebrity status and established goodwill. b) The use of the name “Karan Johar” in the film’s title and promotional content directly linked the film to the Plaintiff, constituting an unauthorized commercial exploitation. c) The addition of “Aur” was deemed insufficient to dispel the association created by the film’s title. d) The CBFC certification was ruled immaterial in the context of evaluating personality and publicity rights.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order XXXIX Rule 4 – Application for Vacation of Ad-Interim Order

2. Cinematographic Act, 1956 – Section 5B – Certification by Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC)

3. Copyright Act, 1957 – Section 17 – Personality and Publicity Rights of Celebrities

Subjects: Personality Rights – Publicity Rights – Right to Privacy – Commercial Exploitation – Brand Name – Celebrity Status – Injunction Relief

Nature of Litigation: The suit was filed to enforce the Plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights and to prevent the unauthorized use of his name in a cinematographic film.

Relief Sought: The Plaintiff, Karan Johar, sought an interim injunction to restrain the Defendants from using his name and attributes of his personality in the title and promotional materials of the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”.

Reason for Filing the Case: The Plaintiff discovered that the Defendants were using his name without consent in their film, thereby attempting to commercially exploit his brand name and goodwill.

Previous Decisions: An ad-interim injunction was granted by the Court on 13th June 2024, preventing the release of the film with the contested title and promotional content.

Issues:

a) Whether the Plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights were violated. b) Whether the use of the name “Karan Johar” in the film title and promotional content created an unauthorized association with the Plaintiff. c) Whether the addition of “Aur” between “Karan” and “Johar” sufficiently distinguished the film’s title from the Plaintiff’s name. d) Whether the CBFC certification of the film precludes the Plaintiff from seeking injunctive relief.

Submissions/Arguments:

Plaintiff: a) Argued that his name has attained distinctive indicia and brand value globally. b) Submitted that the unauthorized use of his name directly associated the film with his persona, creating misleading impressions. c) Cited precedents establishing the enforceability of personality and publicity rights. d) Asserted that the CBFC certification does not address rights related to personality, privacy, and brand names.

Defendants: a) Claimed the title referenced two distinct characters named “Karan” and “Johar”. b) Contended that the addition of “Aur” between the names negated any confusion. c) Argued that the CBFC certification validated the film’s content and precluded further legal challenges. d) Asserted that the Plaintiff approached the Court belatedly.