Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Limited

Court: Hon’ble High Court of Bombay

Citation: 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 546

Date of Judgement: 7^th March 2025

Judge: Justice R.I Chagla

Facts

A film titled, “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar/Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar” depicted two struggling characters, “Karan” and “Johar”, who reach Mumbai and direct a film, “Bar Girl ka Balatkar”. Bollywood Director Karan Johar filed an interim injunction application before the Bombay High Court to stop the release of the Film and to halt any promotional campaigns, including on social media, the defendant’s website, and hoardings/advertisements, to enforce his personality and publicity rights. 

Procedural History

A cease-and-desist notice was issued to the defendants on 6^th June 2024. When the defendants did not reply to the said notice, the plaintiffs filed an interim application, and the plaintiff was granted an ad interim injunction a day before the scheduled release of the film. The defendants then moved an application for vacation of the ad interim injunction. Later, it was withdrawn, and the pleadings in that application were treated as replies to the initial interim injunction application filed by the plaintiff.

Issue

Whether the plaintiff enjoyed personality rights and whether there had been a violation of such rights through the use of his name in the title of the film and various dialogues?

Laws Involved

1. Personality and Publicity Rights in India

2. Section 5-B of the Cinematographic Act, 1956 

   
   

Analysis

The plaintiff argued that the use of the term ‘Director’ with his name would result in an undeniable impression in the audience’s mind that he is associated with the film project. The plaintiff claimed that the film is sleazy and laced with several innuendos, which are harmful to the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation in the entertainment industry. The basis for claiming such a relief was that the defendant’s unauthorised use constituted a violation of the plaintiffs’ personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy. The plaintiff also contended that the mere insertion of an “aur” (and) between the words ‘Karan’ and ‘Johar’ is not an adequate solution to avoid confusion that may be caused in the consumer's mind that the film is associated with the plaintiff. 

On the contrary, the defendant argued that neither individually, the name of the plaintiff has been used by the defendant, nor has any of his likeness/caricature/other aspects of his personality been employed. Thus, no question of personality rights arises. Secondly, relying on the cases of Sanjay Leela Bhansali v. State of Rajasthan  (2018 SCC OnLine Raj 283) and Hiten Dhirajlal Mehta v. Bhansali Production (2022 SCC OnLine Bom 372), the defendant contended that once the censor board has cleared the film for release, only the censorship certificate may be challenged. No other challenge can lie. 

The court rejected the defendant’s arguments. It held that persons have a right to property on their personality rights to exploit them commercially. By referring to various judgements, including Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP (2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445), Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914) and Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015 SCC OnLine Mad 158)  the court held that personality rights vest in those persons who have attained the status of celebrity. These rights extend to commercial exploitation of their names. 

The court highlighted that the plaintiff is a highly credited and leading Indian director, producer, writer, filmmaker, and television personality primarily working in the media and entertainment industry. He has earned credible goodwill in the romantic genre suitable for audiences of all ages, where the main theme of his projects has been marriage. Therefore, the plaintiff has emerged as a brand name with a brand value. The use of his name by the defendant clearly identifies the plaintiff. The court held that “in the case of a celebrity or a well-known individual, the personality rights and publicity rights are easier to identify and consequently clearer to enforce.” Only he has the right to commercially exploit his brand name. By conjointly using the plaintiff’s profession, along with his name and the name of his production company, “Dharma,” in the title and across several dialogues in the film, it resulted in a direct and undeniable reference to the plaintiff.

The court also held that merely adding the word “aur” (and) in between “Karan” and “Johar” did not remedy the situation, as it did not remove the possibility of confusion that may be caused in the public’s minds. The appropriate path would be to change the name altogether, and the intent to retain this name was clearly indicative of the defendant’s intent to freeride on the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. Such an interpretation of allowing mere addition of an “aur” would defeat the principles of Intellectual Property Rights and brand names.

The defendant’s reliance on the Sanjay Leela Bhansali case was refuted by the court. It observed that under Section 5-B of the Cinematographic Act, 1956, the Board does not examine violations of personality/publicity rights or brand value. Therefore, it is open for the court to evaluate the infringement of such personality rights.

Conclusion

The court, therefore, highlighted that it is important to understand the context in which a notable figure like Karan Johar acquired his personality rights. Through the use of his name for a sleazy film, the plaintiff was able to establish the maligning of his personality, publicity rights, and right to privacy. Also, the plaintiff now enjoys commercial rights over his name, where any attempt to unauthorisedly use his brand to earn unjust profits would be met with an infringement suit. This pronouncement shows an overlap between personality rights and trademark law, where the personality of a well-known individual is granted brand value. However, excessive monopoly may result in a reduction of competition in the market and the consequent stifling of creativity.