Personality Rights
Independent News Service Private Ltd & Anr. v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors.
Written by: Adv. Megha Harshwal & Adv. Manoj Soni
What is Personality Rights?
Personality rights refer to a person’s ability to safeguard his or her identity in the context of a property or privacy right. Celebrities value these rights since their names, images, or even voices may be inappropriately used in commercials by various businesses to increase sales. Thus, in order to protect their personal rights, famous people and celebrities have registered their names.
Personality rights as such are not expressly stated in the Constitution, but in the case of Judge K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India, AIR 2017 SC 4161, privacy was acknowledged as a basic right under Article 21 of the Constitution wherein it was stated that Privacy is a “right to be left alone” that is an extension of liberty, and anyone who uses another person’s identity without that person’s consent is seen to have violated both that person’s personality rights and their fundamental right to privacy.
Protection under IPR
The Indian Copyright Act, 1957
According to the act, only creators and performers, including actors, singers, musicians and dancers, have moral rights. The provisions of the Act provide that the author or performer has the right to receive recognition or claim copyright for his work and the right to prevent others from causing any damage to his work.
Section 57 of the Copyright Act protects the special rights of the author, including the personal rights of the artist. The performer owns the ownership of the performance under Section 38 of the Copyright Act and has sole control over the recording and reproduction of the performance. Apart from Section 38 the rights conferred on personality can be derived by Section 17, 39 and 52 of the Copyright Act.
Trade Marks Act of 1999
The Indian Trademark Act does not provide for the exclusive protection of personal or image rights. However, Section 2(m) appropriately includes the term “names” in its definition of “trademark”. Several Indian celebrities like Kajol have trademarked there name from being misused by other persons.
The Delhi High Court in its judgment in Arun Jaitley vs Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011) observed that the popularity or reputation of an individual on the Internet is not different from reality. The court also noted that the name also belongs to the category where, in addition to personality, it has also acquired its own distinguishing features.
Judicial Recognition
- The Madras High Court, in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad vs. Varsha Productions (2015) 62 PTC 351, dealing with a case filed by the renowned Indian actor Mr. Rajinikanth, observed that while there is no definition of “Personality Right” under any Statute in India, courts in India have recognized the same in various judgments.
- In Titan Industries v. M/S Ramkumar Jewellers, CS (OS) No.2662/2011, the Delhi High Court ruled that, “When a prominent person’s name is exploited in advertising without their consent, the objection isn’t that no one should commercialize them; rather, it’s that they should have the power to decide when and how their identity is utilized. The power to regulate how one’s identify is utilized for commercial reasons is defined as the right to publicity.”
- The Delhi High Court recently issued an omnibus order or an ex parte ad interim injunction in the case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & ORS, CS (COMM) 822 OF 2022, prohibiting the public from using one of the most well-known actors, Amitabh Bachchan’s name, image, voice, or any of his characteristics without his permission.
- In the case of Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors., CS(COMM) 384 of 2024 the Delhi High Court issued an interim order, restraining various entities from using Shroff’s name, voice, or image without his consent for commercial purposes. This decision has fortified the protection of personality and publicity rights, especially for celebrities, emphasizing the need for consent in commercial usage of personal attributes. The court recognized Shroff’s status and observed that it is essential to balance freedom of expression of others with Mr. Shroff’s rights to personality, publicity and moral integrity.
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India and Ors. CS (COMM) 652 of 2023, the Hon’ble Delhi High Court expanded the scope of personality rights to encompass mannerisms such as speaking style, gestures, dialogue delivery, and even signatures. The primary aim behind this expansion was to safeguard the individual’s reputation and fame, ensuring they remain unblemished.
The present suit has been filed under Order 34 Rules 1 and 2 of CPC for permanent injunction restraining defendants and those acting for and, on their behalf from using the mark/logo and BAAP KI ADALAT as being similar to the trademark/logo and AAP KI ADALAT of the plaintiff.
Plaintiff No.1 company was incorporated in the year 1997 by its Chairman and Editor-in-Chief Shri. Rajat Sharma, who is Plaintiff No.2. In 2002, Plaintiff No.1 company got the permission from the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting, Government to uplink its 24 hours Hindi News channel called INDIA TV, The mark INDIA TV was coined by Plaintiff No.2.
It is the case of the Plaintiff’s that Defendant No.1, who is a selfproclaimed political satirist creating and publishing various video audio content on social media, including on the platforms of Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 under the similar mark BAAP KI ADALAT. Plaintiffs are aggrieved by the deceptively similar mark being used by Defendant No.1, including one of the principle and popular programs “AAP KI ADALAT”.
Plaintiff’s Submission:
Plaintiff has stated that the manner of using the impugned trademark logo by Defendant No. 1 for social media posts is identical to the manner in which the plaintiff has been using the mark on his channels.
The Court held that the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction till the next date of hearing. Balance of convenience lies in favour of plaintiff, and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.
Accordingly, till the next date of hearing, The Delhi High Court has issued an order restraining the creator of ‘Baap ki Adalat’ and other platforms from using a logo similar to that of journalist Rajat Sharma’s IndiaTV show ‘Aap Ki Adalat’ to protect Sharma’s personality rights.