INTRODUCTION
On 7th March 2025, the Bombay High Court passed an absolute interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar in the case ofKaran Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors1. This case sparked a heated debate about personality rights in the entertainment industry. It highlights the importance of celebrity rights, following well-known cases involving Bollywood icons such as Amitabh Bachchan, Arijit Singh, and Anil Kapoor. These cases set a precedent for prominent personalities to protect their names and identities from unauthorized use.
MAIN BLOG
Karan Johar, the plaintiff, is a leading Indian director, producer, and television personality, renowned both in India and globally. He has built a strong reputation for directing and producing family-oriented films. Over the years, he has garnered immense goodwill and is entitled to enforce his personality and publicity rights. The plaintiff filed for an interim injunction to prevent the defendant from using his name, "Karan Johar," in the film titled "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar", arguing that his name has become a brand. He claimed that the defendants used "Karan Johar," either alone or in connection with their film, solely to commercially exploit his reputation, goodwill, and identity, thereby seeking to unfairly enrich themselves. His name has become his brand, and he holds the economic rights to it.
The defendants, India Pride Advisory, argued that the plaintiff's actual name is Rahul Johar, and that "Karan Johar" is merely his pet name within the film industry. It is well known to the public that "Karan Johar" refers to a single individual, whereas the title of the impugned film refers to two separate characters. Therefore, they contended, there is no connection between the plaintiff and the film's title. Additionally, they argued that the plaintiff is not involved in matchmaking or marriage arrangements, which are unrelated to his professional work.
The defendants further argued that the plaintiff delayed filing the lawsuit until just before the film's release. They pointed out that the film had already received certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC), citing precedents such as Sanjay Leela Bhansali v. State of Rajasthan and Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta v. Bhansali Production & Ors., where courts held that once a film is certified by the CBFC, its release cannot be stopped unless the certification is challenged. Based on this, they argued that the court should dismiss the interim application with costs.
The Court observed that the unauthorized use of a personality's name amounts to an infringement of personality rights. It noted that the name "Karan Johar" has attained distinctive indicia, which, combined with his popularity, makes it a valuable asset. The Court also stated that the mere use of "AUR" between "Karan" and "Johar" does not establish any association with the plaintiff's name and undermines the concepts of intellectual property rights and brand identity.
Furthermore, the Court clarified that the plaintiff is not claiming "celebrity rights" per se but is enforcing "personality and publicity rights." In the case of the plaintiff, these rights are interconnected; celebrity rights are not independent from publicity and personality rights. The Court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as irreparable injury could occur if interim relief was not granted. The Court relied on precedents such as Titan Industries Ltd.v. Ramkumar Jewellers 2where the Delhi High Court has recognized the "publicity right" of a celebrity to include the right to control when, where and how their identity is vested with the famous personality. The Bombay High Court also referenced Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India and Ors.,3where the Supreme Court disapproved of any misuse or commercial exploitation of a celebrity's name, voice, persona, or likeness, as established in the Auto Shankar case4 and granted an interim injunction in favor of Karan Johar.
CONCLUSION
Indian courts have consistently granted injunctions in favor of celebrities to protect their personality and publicity rights, which grant them exclusive control over the commercial use of their identity. The Bombay High Court's decision to grant a permanent injunction, despite potential impacts on freedom of speech and creative liberty, underscores the importance of these rights. The Delhi High Court in Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Ltd5emphasized that there is no separate category of "celebrity rights," and all citizens are equal before the law. However, the precedents relied upon by the Bombay High Court indirectly support the concept of celebrity rights.
The Court could have adopted a more balanced approach by allowing the film's release with appropriate disclaimers, rather than issuing an outright ban. The Supreme Court's decision in Bata India v Prakash Jha Productions6permitted the use of a brand name with restrictions and conditions, such as disclaimers, to balance rights and interests.
Footnotes
1. Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 546
2. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382
3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
4. R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N., (1994) 6 SCC 632
5. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories Limited v. Eros International Media Limited, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1298
6. Bata India Ltd. v. Prakash Jha Productions, (2013) 1 SCC 729
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
