Personality Rights in Indian Scenario

Personality Rights

Personality rights means a right of person related to his or her personality. They can be protected under right to privacy or as a property of a person. This is important to mostly celebrities because people use a celebrity name or a photograph to advertise their trade and this usage influences their sales. Anyone can misuse a celebrity’s name or a photograph very easily for their trade, therefore it is important for a celebrity to register a trademark of their name to save their personality rights.

Position of Personality Rights In Indian Law                                                             

In India, the closest statute to protect personality rights is Article 21 of the Constitution of India under right to privacy and right to publicity. There is no statute or law that protects personality rights in India per se. Nevertheless, these days India also started recognising these rights through many significant judgements. One of the most important judgements related to personality rights was given in ICC Development (International) Ltd. vs. Arvee Enterprises[1], by the Delhi High Court in 2003, it was held that:

“The right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice. etc. An individual may acquire the right of publicity by virtue of his association with an event, sport, movie, etc”.

Further, in TITAN Industries vs. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers[2] on 26th April 2012, the defendant used an identical advertisement hoarding to the Plaintiffs’ advertisement that featured the famous couple Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mrs. Jaya Bachchan. Further, the defendant also did not seek any permission or got into any agreements with either the couple or the plaintiff. Thus, the Delhi High Court granted the permanent injunction explaining the right to publicity:

“When the identity of a famous personality is used in advertising without their permission, the complaint is not that no one should not commercialize their identity but that the right to control when, where and how their identity is used should vest with the famous personality. The right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity”.

Also, in case of Mr. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (aka Rajinikanth) vs. M/s. Varsha Productions[3] an Interim injunction was passed against the release of a film “Main Hoon Rajinikanth” by Varsha Productions by referring to the judgements from the above-mentioned cases.

The most recent case regarding the personality rights is Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs D.A.P & Co. & Anr.[4] on 13th December 2017, wherein the defendant was using Gautam Gambhir’s name in running their lounge and restaurant, which was mistaken by people to be associated with the said famous personality.  Thus, the applicant sued the defendant…

In this case the interim injunction was not granted as the defendant’s name was also Gautam Gambhir, apparently, he has to carry on his business in his name and he neither claimed that the business is related to the cricketer nor he displayed any pictures of the cricketer anywhere. He very prominently displayed his own pictures everywhere to show his own identity. And when the logo of the restaurants was being registered no objection was raised by anyone. Seemingly it was decided that the defendant has not made any use of the reputation of the plaintiff’s name in his trade. Therefore, the interim injunction was not granted, and all the pending applications were disposed of.

However, the case is again under consideration by Division bench of Delhi High Court which seems to focus more on Personality rights. Further, a notice was issued on 17th January, 2018 to the defendants DAP & Co for which the reply is expected on 20 March 2018[5]

Conclusion

From the above discussion it can concluded that, only the illegal and unrightful usage of the personality rights with unjust intentions are punishable under the law. To be more precise, it is clear by the above discussed case laws that a celebrity’s name can not be used for any commercial use without any prior consent of the concerned celebrity, as these celebrities acquire their brand value through their hard work. Therefore, any use of their name or photographs that is commercially utilized, must be exploited by the celebrities themselves and no one else.

Author: M. Sai Krupa, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. Can be reached at anirudh@khuranaandkhurana.com.

References:

[1]2003 (26) PTC 245

[2]2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del)

[3]2015 (62) PTC 351 (Madras)

[4]CS(COMM) 395/2017

[5]https://theindianjurist.com/2018/01/18/delhi-high-court-decide-plea-gautam-gambhir-gautam-gambhir/

[6]  http://www.mondaq.com/india/x/345080/Personality+Rights+Need+For+A+Clear+Legislaton

Leave a Reply

Archives

  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010