Brand Personality on Trial: When Trademarks Collide with Personality Rights

Introduction: The Identity Economy and Its Legal Discontents

In days gone by, a celebrities name, or catchphrase, or a vocal identity can be a proven source of considerable amount of brand income; therefore, in these days the legal issue of control of a public figure's identity has gained acute commercial and constitutional importance. From giving the brand of clothes or face of a film star a connection with a movie, or providing AI-generated voice of a singer, without permission of the singer, is a common occurrence by third parties and has resulted in an extraordinary number of litigations across Delhi and Bombay High Courts. This blog critically discusses the blurred lines between trademark law and personality rights in India, tracing the landmark court decisions and placing them in the context of the dynamic intelligence landscape and the digital economy.

There is no separate legislation in India focusing on personality rights. It is built ad-hoc from the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 and the common law tort of passing off, resulting in a hodgepodge of unharmonised architecture with often conflicting results and the seemingly innocuous question of where does a trademark start and a personality begin?

The Legal Landscape: Trademarks, Personality, and the Gap Between Them

A. Trademark Rights Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999

The concept of trademark according to section 2(zb) of the trade marks act, 1999 is a graphic representable mark to different goods or services of different persons. However Section 2(m) explicitly mentions a ‘name’ as constituting a ‘mark' to give a textual dimension to registration as trademarks of celebrities’ names. The measure of enhanced protection afforded to well known marks (under Section 11(6)/Section 11(9)) prevents third parties from registering dissimilar goods (unless such registration would be unfair or be detrimental to the distinctive character of the mark). Section 14 also says that a mark cannot be registered if it is the name of a living person without their permission.

While helpful, these are largely aimed at consumer confusion caused by commercial origin - this does not fully represent the diversity of harms that can be caused by unauthorised exploitation of identity.

B. Personality Rights: The Right of Publicity and Privacy

There are two aspects of personality rights - closely related but distinct. Economic Right is the right of publicity - the firm rights about commercial use of one's name, image, voice, and persona. The right of privacy, which was enshrined by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India, protects both personal dignity and personal autonomy. These both features have been raised in Indian courts but now there is a dedicated law. Rather, protection has been created under the common law of passing off, the performer's rights under Sections 38 and 38A of the Copyright Act, 1957 and under constitutional principles, a patchwork that the courts have tried to unite into a comprehensive doctrine with varying degrees of success.

The Judiciary as Legislature: Landmark Cases Shaping Personality Rights

A. D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors. (2010)

One of the earliest and significant decisions to the right of publicity in India was the Delhi High Court's decision in “D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors. (2002")”. Defendants have sold mini dolls of singer Daler Mehndi without permission, and had programmed in the lines from Daler Mehndi's compositions. However, the Court held that such use constituted infringement of the right of publicity, false endorsement and the right of passing-off. It explained the key idea that the rights to a celebrity's identity are quasi-property, rights that attach to and derive from the commercial value of the person, and that using someone's personality to sell a product, is “actionable false endorsement.” A permanent injunction and token damages of Rupees One Lakh was granted.

B. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)

In the case of “Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers”, it was determined by the Delhi High Court that the unauthorized use of pictures of celebrities in the advertisements issued by Titan amounted to an unauthorized endorsement and passing off. The Court reiterated that the right of the person to control the commercial image of the individual - including the appearance in advertising - is a proprietary right, and any duplication of the commercial image may lead to injury without consumer confusion.

B. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012)

In the case of “Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers”, it was determined by the Delhi High Court that the unauthorized use of pictures of celebrities in the advertisements issued by Titan amounted to an unauthorized endorsement and passing off. The Court reiterated that the right of the person to control the commercial image of the individual - including the appearance in advertising - is a proprietary right, and any duplication of the commercial image may lead to injury without consumer confusion.

C. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023)

On 20 September 2023, the Delhi High Court issued an important judgment in favour of actor Anil Kapoor who had filed a complaint against 16 actors accused of creating his AI deepface, selling unauthorised merchandise, and misleading people as ‘Jhakaas' motivational speakers in “Phantom Heart Productions v. Simply Life India & Ors”., CS(COMM) 652/2023. Justice Pratibha M. Singh issued the ex parte omnibus injunction, prohibiting the defendants from leveraging any aspect of the actor's personality to “any commercial activities” using technological tools such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep fake, face morphing or GIFs.” The Court spoke about the actor's constitutional right on privacy under the Article 21, which had intersections with his intellectual property rights, giving rise to a composite protection available to the actor. An important development of the right of publicity doctrine in India was the recognition of the right of an individual to even a distinctive verbal catch phrase as a protectable personality attribute.

On 20 September 2023, the Delhi High Court issued an important judgment in favour of actor Anil Kapoor who had filed a complaint against 16 actors accused of creating his AI deepface, selling unauthorised merchandise, and misleading people as ‘Jhakaas' motivational speakers in “Phantom Heart Productions v. Simply Life India & Ors”., CS(COMM) 652/2023. Justice Pratibha M. Singh issued the ex parte omnibus injunction, prohibiting the defendants from leveraging any aspect of the actor's personality to “any commercial activities” using technological tools such as artificial intelligence, machine learning, deep fake, face morphing or GIFs.” The Court spoke about the actor's constitutional right on privacy under the Article 21, which had intersections with his intellectual property rights, giving rise to a composite protection available to the actor. An important development of the right of publicity doctrine in India was the recognition of the right of an individual to even a distinctive verbal catch phrase as a protectable personality attribute.

D. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf (Jackie Shroff) v. The Peppy Store and Ors. (2024)

In Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. In the case of “The Peppy Store and Ors., CS(COMM) 389/2024”, the Delhi High Court found that the proprietary right of the actor transcended his on-screen persona and encompassed his nickname, name, image and voice. Unquestionably, the Court saw the operation of an unauthorised AI chatbot misusing and replicating Shroff's personality as a violation of his personality rights, and blocked that. In a crucial balancing argument, however, the Court denied the YouTuber who made a mockery of the actor's ‘Thug Life’ ‘personality rights’ protection from his use of edited video excerpts, asserting that YouTube's material did not misrepresent but simply amplified the actor's ‘actual’ image.

E. Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Others (2024)

“In Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Others, Commercial IPR Suit (L) No. 23443 of 2024”, the Supreme Court, in a landmark judgment, has sounded the alarm on Intellectual Property infringement and the use of his name, voice, photographs, image, caricature, likeness and persona by 38 defendants including AI platforms, restaurant chains, e-commerce portals and domain name registrars. The scope of the defendant pool demonstrated the isolation of the offences of breach of personality rights in the digital economy, so that comprehensive remedies in order to reach the effect of a breach affecting the entire supply chain are to be aimed at.

F. Asha Bhosle v. Mayc. Inc (2025)

The latest and possibly most high-tech was in September, 2025, when the Bombay High Court gave a temporary injunction to renowned singer Asha Bhosle to halt the unauthorized creation and usage of voice models based on her signature vocal style and arrangements by AI companies. The Court explained that she has established a goodwill and reputation through decades, and that this is also worthy of protection as a commercial asset, and as an extension of her moral rights and dignity. The ad-interim injunction granted against all defendants, including unknown ‘John Doe’ trademark infringers, included a clear statement that the singer's voice itself as a personal trait was entitled to protection as a personality, which is a significant recognition of the development of the law surrounding personality rights.

The Core Tension: Trademark Law as a Surrogate for Personality Rights

As noted, at the beginning of the doctrine of “passing off under Trademark law,” Indian courts have relied heavily on the doctrine to advance the protection of personality rights (even without formal trademark registration). This is a practical way to provide a service, but create a normative tension which may be worthy of examination.

The placement of the trademark concern is directed towards the function of the trademark in trade, which is considered as the core of trademark law. This is not the place where I draw the line about the proprietary interest an individual has in his/her identity, as this is the central role of the entity – to eliminate consumer confusion over the ownership of products and goods. Broadly speaking, courts applying passing-off principles to personality rights are pushing the limits of the trademark doctrine. Thanks to the doctrinal pliability, celebrities in desperate circumstances are having their problems solved, but this can lead to a body of law that is seriously incoherent without the aid of legislation.

The second, irksomere and more significant one lies in the constitutional right to freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a). It recognised this balance in the case of Tata Sons v. Greenpeace International, CS(OS) No. 11/2010, where the High Court of Delhi refused to issue a trademark injunction against a non-for-profit organisation that utilised the Tata logo in a website where it participated in the online game to promote environmental awareness; the Court further held that the public interest button in the expression had the predominant direction. It will be the responsibility of courts to ensure that personality rights are not being used as an “ownership” tool to prevent examples of legitimate commentary, parody or satire.

A third gap is one of access: In practice, protection of personality rights remains reserved for celebrities who have the resources to court combat and/or have substantial goodwill. Despite decisions like Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi, which stated that personality rights could be other than for celebrities, the rules of litigation remain to this day that ordinary people remain barred from adequate remedy.

The AI Frontier: Where Personality Rights Law Meets Generative Technology

The use of deepfakes, voice-cloning programs and generative tools that emulate a person's face or voice are an emerging classification of personality rights abuses for which current laws are less well prepared to adequately protect. What India has been able to do is just give advisory directives to digital intermediaries back in 2023 and 2024, mandating takedown actions for deepfake content, which are also not legally binding and don't set benchmarks for proactive monitoring or liability that are in line with the harm that can be caused by a deepfake.

While the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023, is a major stride towards data privacy, it does not sufficiently take into account the commercialization of identity via AI. Others have proposed that a sui generis framework surrounding the tort exception and privacy provisions, along with those impacting on false endorsement (copyright), and the public backlash against the concept of misappropriation would be necessary to address these legislative holes. Interim measures, both radical and creative - such as the John Doe order issued in favour of an unidentified AI platform and the ex parte injunction granted within days of the order - have proved to be a response from courts to the digital era.

Conclusion: Towards a Coherent Framework

The tale of the Indian trial of brand personality is one where the law has found itself trying to adapt to changes brought about by both business and technology. From the judgment of D.M. Entertainment in 2010 up to the ongoing case of Asha Bhosle in 2025, the judiciary has been able to establish a clear jurisprudential path in terms of recognizing personality rights, giving them actionability and significance within commerce. While the doctrine has been successfully adapted to provide relief for particular instances, it has also brought to light the risks of a personality right protection system founded on judicial creativity alone.

India needs a legal framework for personality rights that sets out guidelines on the elements to be protected, requirements for registration and recognition, defences to parody and criticism and the remedies in case of any infringement using AI technology. There are comparative frameworks available to serve as examples, like statutes on the Right of Publicity in various U.S states and EU's framework on the same via the General Data Protection Regulation. Nevertheless, the chosen framework must be respectful of the distinct constitutional values of the country when dealing with freedom of speech and access to justice.

Author: Aman Kumar Singh, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.