When Art Crosses The Line: Protecting Personality Rights In The Karan Johar Case

Summary:

In the case Karan Johar vs. Filmmakers of “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”[1], the Plaintiff, filmmaker Karan Johar, approached the Bombay High Court seeking an injunction to stop the parties from using his name and related attributes of his personality, without his permission, in the title and promotional materials of the film. Johar alleged that the film’s title and its narrative elements, which include a direct reference to his brand and the use of identifiers such as “Karan” and “Johar” together along with the production house “Dharma,” were designed to capitalize on his established reputation. The Defendants were to be prohibited from making use of his name or any closely resembling terms without his consent, the Court held, conceding that if such relief was not duly afforded, could lead to irreparable harm to his overall brand, while potentially confusing the public.

Facts (Background)-

The Plaintiff, 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 Plaintiff submitted that the respondents were infringing upon the Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff’s name reputation and goodwill with a view unfairly enrich itself. It was submitted that the respondents used the Plaintiff’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 Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff 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 Plaintiff and stayed the release of the film.

Issues:

1. Whether the use of the name “Karan Johar” – and associated attributes that signify his personality – in the film’s title, trailers, and other promotional material amounts to an infringement of his personality and publicity rights.
2. Whether the misuse of filmmaker Karan Johar’s identity by linking films he did not direct, thereby exploiting his reputation and distinct persona for unfair advantage.

Plaintiff’s Arguments:

• The Plaintiff, Karan Johar claimed that he has no affiliation with the film and that the defendants are unlawfully using his name. The film, co-produced by IndiaPride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. And Sanjay Singh and directed by Bablu Singh, allegedly infringed on Karan Johar’s personality rights, right to publicity, and right to privacy.
• The plaint asserted that the film’s title directly referred to Karan Johar’s name, unlawfully exploiting his brand, reputation, and goodwill without authorisation. The plea states that the unauthorized use of his name in the film’s title is intended to capitalize on his established reputation, which is not permissible under the law.
• The plaint stated that Karan Johar’s name has acquired a distinctive identity and secondary meaning due to his widespread popularity in media and entertainment, particularly Bollywood. This status under intellectual property laws granted Karan Johar the right to prevent others from using his well-known and distinctive name and, as a public figure, Johar has the right to protect his privacy and personality, the plaint states.
• Johar contended that the release of trailers and promotional material is causing and will continue to cause irreparable damage to his reputation and goodwill, built over years of dedicated work and investment.

Defendant’s Arguments:

The Defendants contended that there is a clear distinguisher for the use of word “Aur” between “Karan” and “Johar”. They are also ready to change the promo materials, and if needed we can keep it as “Karan Aur Johar” with the appropriate disclaimers stating that we have nothing to do Mr. Karan Johar. The Defendants further rely on precedents, such as the judgments in Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories Ltd. v. Eros International Media Ltd.[2] and Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A Sarogi[3], to argue that the concept of exclusive “celebrity rights” is not absolute under Indian law. As Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) has certified the same as per statutory requirement regarding public decency & morality, the same is in compliance and hence cannot be stopped from release merely of certification of theme.

Judgment:

The Court after going through the complete matter found itself convinced for the need to grant relief to Plaintiff. The Court held that the identification of Plaintiff in the film title “Karan Johar” and promo materials by Defendants are in clear violation of public persona/ right of celebrity of Plaintiff. The judgment noted that the Plaintiff’s name and the associated identifiers had acquired distinctive character and commercial value through years of successful filmmaking.  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.

Court asserted that to rely on insert of “Aur” has not led to minimization of crowd and public deceptive and use of disclaimer as adding to the argument of defense that it sufficiently dissociates the title with the Plaintiff’s name. It was also made clear by the Court that CBFC certificate will not help a person infringe personality and publicity rights like the instant case, film content has the direct nexus with Plaintiffs celebrity leading to infringement of his originality.

Conclusion:

The Court’s decision in this case represents a significant development in the enforcement of personality and publicity rights within the Indian legal framework. By granting the interim injunction, the Court affirmed that public figures have the right to control the use of their name and identity, especially when such use is intended for commercial benefit without proper authorization. Ultimately, the case emphasizes the need for a careful balance between freedom of expression in creative works and the protection of personal rights, ensuring that public figures are not unfairly disadvantaged by the unapproved commercial use of their persona.