corporate law
The Delhi High Court has recently issued a ruling in favor of actor Jackie Shroff, providing him with legal protection against the unauthorized use of his name and voice. This important decision followed a lawsuit filed by Shroff regarding trademark infringement and violations of his personality and publicity rights. The court found several defendants guilty of misusing Shroff’s identity for commercial profit, including merchandise sales, offensive content creation, and the unauthorized use of his name.
Jackie Shroff, a distinguished actor with numerous accolades, including several Filmfare Awards, approached the Delhi High Court alleging infringement of his personality and publicity rights. He asserted that his name and voice, including aliases such as "Jaggu Dadda" and "Bhidu," were used without consent. Specific instances cited included:
This case mirrors an earlier instance involving Anil Kapoor in Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and Ors, where Kapoor's name, image, and voice were similarly exploited for commercial purposes without consent. Justice Prathiba M. Singh ruled against unauthorized usage in that case as well.
On May 15, 2024, Justice Sanjeev Narula of the Single Judge Bench issued an ad-interim order granting protection of Jackie Shroff's personality rights. The judge concluded that the balance of convenience favored Shroff, establishing a prima facie case for an ex-parte injunction against several defendants, including:
Lawyer Pravin Anand highlighted various abuses of Shroff’s personality and publicity rights, emphasizing the detrimental impact of memes and GIFs, as well as unauthorized use of Marathi slang “Bhidu.” He argued that allowing misuse could mislead consumers into believing that products were endorsed by the actor and referenced similar rulings involving Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor to strengthen his case.
The court cited D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010), affirming that publicity rights protect individuals from unauthorized use of their identity, including name, image, and voice. The court recognized that such misuse could lead to unjust commercial advantages for third parties, infringing on the individual’s personality rights.
As part of its ruling, the court prohibited the defendants from utilizing Shroff's:
This includes the creation of downloadable wallpapers, publishing offensive videos, and the exploitation of his persona through an unauthorized AI chatbot.
The court also issued notices to entities accused of violating Shroff’s rights, including a YouTube content creator of an alleged offensive video and a restaurant owner using the registered trademark “Bhidu.”
While addressing the video issue, the court noted that the representation of the entertainer did not involve any deception but showcased his current public image. The court expressed intention to hear from the YouTuber before issuing further orders.
A temporary injunction was granted against multiple defendants for infringing on Shroff’s character rights. Additionally, the court mandated compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 within one week. It also directed the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to instruct telecom service providers and internet access suppliers to block infringing URLs.
The judgment by the Delhi High Court emphasizes the critical need to safeguard personality and publicity rights within the entertainment sector. This ruling restricts entities from exploiting Jackie Shroff’s name, voice, and image without proper authorization, establishing a precedent for the protection of celebrities' intellectual property rights. It serves as a stern reminder against the unauthorized commercial use of personal identities.