Bombay High Court: In the present case, the applicant-plaintiff was seeking an interim injunction restraining the respondents-defendants from using his name “Karan Johar” together, or in parts and from using the attributes of his personality in the film’s title “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”/“Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar” (‘the film’), in the trailers, and in any other promotional materials including that which was posted on social media platforms, website of the respondents, hoardings/advertisements in public places. A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., held that the relief sought for by the applicant was required to be granted as the respondents, by unauthorizedly using the applicant’s name and personality attributes in the title of the film prima facie violated his personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy.
Background
The applicant, a highly credited and leading Indian Director, Producer, Writer, Filmmaker and Television Personality, primarily worked in the media and entertainment industry and was entitled to enforce his personality and publicity rights. The applicant submitted that the respondents were infringing upon the applicant’s right to personality and publicity without due cause as the respondents used “Karan Johar” whether together, or otherwise in the manner used in relation to their film only with a view to commercially exploit the applicant’s name reputation and goodwill with a view unfairly enrich itself.
It was submitted that the respondents used the applicant’s name and attempted to associate it with a film that was sleazy, B-grade, in bad test and laced with innuendos that were directly attributable to the applicant. Thus, the applicant contended that he was entitled in law to claim that his name must not be associated with any film without his consent. Thus, the present application was filed for ad-interim relief and by an order dated 13-6-2024, this Court had granted ad-interim relief in favour of the applicant and stayed the release of the film.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the applicant claimed violation of personality and/or publicity rights which he possessed as has directed and/or produced several blockbuster films and had garnered immense goodwill and reputation in the media and entertainment industry in India and globally. The Court opined that the respondents by using the name “Karan”, “Johar” in relation to the film would commercially exploit the brand name obtained by the applicant and which the applicant alone had economic rights to commercially exploit as per his discretion. The Court stated that people have a right to property on their personality rights to exploit the same commercially.
The Court relied on D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790; ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 2; Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382; Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, 2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158; Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914; Jaikishan Kakubai Saraf v. Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664; and Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP, 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445, where publicity and personality rights of persons were recognized. The celebrities were entitled to protection of their personality such as their name against unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties.
The Court stated that the respondents had used in the words, “Shadi Ke Director” followed by “Karan Aur Johar”/“Karan Johar” in the film’s name and the plot of the film was about two protagonists, “Karan” and “Johar”, who play the role of characters that professionally attempt to become film directors in Bollywood industry. The Court opined that by conjointly using “director”, which was the profession, along with the applicant’s name and the film’s plot, there was a direct and undeniable reference drawn to the applicant. Thus, the Court rejected the contention that the names “Karan” and “Johar” were names of two different people and could not create confusion in the minds of the people.
The Court referred to the extracts of the scripts and noted that the applicant’s name was used conjointly and there was a reference to the production house of the applicant company “Dharma” which would inevitably result in general people directly associating the film with the applicant. The Court opined that the respondents were aware that such direct and indirect references to the applicant would be noticed by the public when they view the film. Thus, a clear attempt was made to ride upon the applicant’s goodwill and reputation.
The Court rejected the contention that mere addition of “AUR” in between “Karan” and “Johar” was an adequate solution to avoid any possible confusion that might be caused in the minds of public that the film was associated with the applicant. The Court noted that Respondent 2 was ready and willing to change wherever “Karan Johar” was used together as “Karan Aur Johar” and opined that the said change would not provide a remedy to the present dispute. Thus, it would be more appropriate for the respondents to change the use of the applicant’s name as their intent to retain the brand name of the applicant prima facie established their intent to ride upon the applicant’s goodwill and reputation.
The Court further opined that merely because the Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) certificate was obtained for the said film, the same did not restrict the applicant’s right to take action against the film for violation of the applicant’s rights. The Court stated that by allowing the respondents to use the brand name/personality rights of the applicant in the film by merely giving a disclaimer “This film has nothing to do with the Producer/Director Shri Karan Johar Ji”, would be in complete contravention of IP Laws, personality rights, and privacy rights.
The Court stated that the applicant was not claiming “celebrity rights” but was enforcing “personality and publicity rights” and he stated that “Celebrity Rights” itself were not independent and separate from publicity and personality rights.
The Court thus held that the relief sought for by the applicant was required to be granted as the respondents by unauthorizedly using the applicant’s name and personality attributes in the title of the film prima facie violated his personality rights, publicity rights, right to privacy, and use of his brand name. Further, the applicant established that by using his brand name, the respondents were attempting to ride upon the applicant’s goodwill and reputation to earn unjust profits for itself.
[Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 546, decided on 7-3-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, Rashmin Khandekar, Parag Khandhar, Pranita Saboo, Anaheeta Verma, Pratyusha Dhodda and Shayan Bisney i/b. DSK Legal.
For the Respondents/Defendants: Ashok Saraogi, with Anand Mishra, Sushil Upadhyay, Amit Dubey, Siddharth Singh, and Priti Rao for Respondent 2.
