[A big thanks to Praharsh for his inputs on the post.]
This is Part II of the two-part post on the recent Bombay High Court (BomHC) order in the case of Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors that has once again brought to the spotlight the debate of balancing the protection of celebrity’ personality rights and the freedom of expressions and parodical use. In Part I of the post (here), the BomHC’s decision and analysis of the issues, arguments and observations of the court were discussed. Part II will explore the order in the context of the general trend set by precedents over the past decade by the courts and assess how much weight the extant BomHC order holds.
Rights or Wrong?: Are We Going in the Correct Direction for Personality Rights?
Favourable orders on personality rights have become an undoubted trend recently. Cases involving Rajinikanth’s name (covered here), Amitabh Bachchan’s baritone (covered here), Anil Kapoor’s “Jhakaas” (covered here), Arijit Singh’s voice (covered here and here), Vishnu Manchu’s name (covered here), Rajat Sharma’s name (covered here), Daler Mehndi’s name (covered here), and, most recently, Ratan Tata’s name (pdf), are just a few latest examples that come to mind when one tries to recall the latest legacy IP courts have been setting in upholding personality and publicity rights of celebrities.
However, it is important to note the manner in which courts are granting these injunctions. This recurring pattern of favourable orders suggests that once someone is recognized as a big name, others are effectively prohibited from using any attributes of their personality in any form at all. This includes not only commercial exploitation but also use in the form of parody or satire as well. Commercial exploitation angle was seen in the Rajat Sharma case (covered here), where the court injuncted the use of artificial intelligence to morph the image and voice of the plaintiff to make advertisements, while the Mohan Babu case (covered here) showed how the court stifled free speech by injuncting not only the Youtube channel but even its subscribers watching AI-generated content depicting the plaintiff supposedly “not in good taste”.
This trend of favourable orders in personality rights cases has gone to the extent that even the concept of a “well-known name” has been brought to the fore. The 7th February 2025 decision in Sir Ratan Tata Trust & Anr v. Dr. Rajat Shrivastava becomes particularly relevant to this discussion. In this case, Tata Trust had two main allegations: first, that the defendant was using the “Tata” trademark, and second, that his image and name were being misused to hold an event titled “THE RATAN TATA NATIONAL ICON AWARD 2024” by a journalist. The court ruled that the trademark could not be used without a license, and for the image, there was a wrongful association prohibited under the trademark law. However, when it came to the name “Ratan Tata,” the court relied on Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Private Limited & Ors. (2011), which imported the well-known trademark principle to protect well-known names as well.
However, statutorily, while one can seek a remedy in tort for misrepresentation, there is no specific provision in the Trademark Act, 1999 for such a use per se. While restricting the use of someone’s image is justified as a legal right, there is no statutory basis for treating a ‘well-known name’ in the same way as a trademark. This is a judicial creation meant to broaden the scope of personality rights. The real question, however, is how much is too much? Moreover, won’t this lead to the posthumous enforcement of personality rights, which was explicitly denied in the Sushant Singh Rajput case (covered here)?
Going Against The Flow: What Have Been The Deviations From This Trend
Another aspect to consider is whether there are any exceptions to personality rights. At first glance, it doesn’t seem so. Most courts have taken a strict stance against exceptions, except for Justice Narula in the case involving the Jackie Shroff Thug Life video. It is important to note that the right to livelihood was not invoked against a YouTuber but rather in favour of him as one of the defendants in the case. In this instance, the Delhi High Court deviated from the prevailing trend and took a different approach compared to the Anil Kapoor case. Instead of relying on the right to livelihood as a basis for granting personality rights to Jackie Shroff, the court invoked this right to protect the YouTuber, whose financial standing is significantly different from that of Jackie Shroff or Anil Kapoor. This shift in reasoning was a welcome move, as it paved the way for greater protection of parody, satire, and other forms of creative expression.
Over the past many years, artists have used the names of personalities in the form of artistic and creative freedom. Sometimes, they took permission, while in other instances, it is difficult to determine whether permissions or royalties were given or if the actors simply let it go and didn’t enforce their rights when their names were used.
There have been previous movies where actors’ names were used. For instance, Bol Bachchan, in which Abhishek Bachchan himself starred, Shahrukh Bola “Khoobsurat Hai Tu”, which featured a cameo by Shah Rukh Khan, and Padmashree Laloo Prasad Yadav, where Laloo Prasad had a cameo. While these instances suggest that personalities’ names were used, their subsequent cinematic involvement makes it unclear whether they simply failed to object or if a mutual understanding was reached already. Not just in movies, but the usage of celebrity names in songs is just as common, such as the early-2000s hit ‘Aslam Bhai.’ But again, it is difficult to determine whether permissions were taken for the same. What’s certain is that no legal action was pursued against the song’s creators. It seems, in the past, these things were overlooked easily, but now, personality rights are claimed so often that even light-hearted references are a quagmire of legal dispute. This naturally raises questions about balancing personality rights protection and allowing space for creative freedom.
Another case that deserves a mention for its observations is Bata v. Prakash Jha Productions (succinctly covered here). The Supreme Court, in this case, directed the production house to run a disclaimer whenever the song was played. The Plaintiff acknowledged that the song appeared within the movie’s context and noted that the use of business house names, including BATA, was in poor taste and could have been avoided. However, the Court clarified that “poor taste” does not necessarily imply an intent to tarnish the reputation of these businesses. Striking a balance, an interim order requiring the inclusion of a disclaimer (in audio/video versions of the song) stating that the names used in the song were merely examples, with no intent to harm or disrespect any individual or brand, was given.
In the current order, the SB noted that a disclaimer would not suffice. However, logically speaking, no one would really believe that a parodical movie like this was directed and produced by Karan Johar himself, and a disclaimer specifying that the movie was not associated with him should have sufficed as per Bata. However, this does not seem to be the Court’s reading.
Another aspect the plaintiff claimed was that the characters in the film are directing a B-grade movie and that Karan Johar only makes family movies, and this would negatively impact his goodwill. However, isn’t that how parodies work? Clearly, at a time when orders upholding personality rights are becoming mere drops in the sea, it is high time to analyze how many of these orders actually hold water.