A celebrity can be simply described as a person who has invested a lot of time and effort, physically and mentally, to develop his personality and goodwill, and is generally speaking well-known amongst the Public at large. The name and likeness or other unique aspect of a well-known “persona” is often unfairly exploited by people, which can hinder the reputation of the celebrity or the product that the celebrity is associated with.

In a country like India where certain celebrities are given a godlike status, and celebrity endorsements are at an all-time high, such misuse can have serious detrimental effects. Personality rights per se in India are not protected, however, celebrities are given protection under the right to privacy guaranteed by the Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, and right to publicity inferred also from article 19 of the Indian Constitution.

The tort of Privacy is difficult to establish as defining the term “privacy” is challenging and complicated. It is also problematic to ascertain the degree of liability in such cases. Privacy Rights was first examined by the Supreme Court in 1994, in the case RR Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, wherein the court was of the opinion that “The first aspect of this right must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person’s name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising – or non-advertising– purposes or for any other matter.” The right to publicity, on the other hand, is the right of the celebrity to commercially exploit and profit from their name and personality. Simply put, a commercial value is added to the image and name of a famous person and such image/name is treated as a property. Such personality rights can be exploited to the exclusion of others and it is illegal to unauthorisedly exploit the same for commercial purposes without the concerned celebrity’s consent. Personality Rights in India are at a nascent stage and the few cases that have discussed such rights have been deliberated upon in this article.

In September 2014, the Madras High Court granted the superstar Rajinikanth a stay order against the release of a film “Main Hoon Rajinikanth” in the matter, Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions. The superstar, who has an iconic status in Indian cinema, invoked his Personality Rights in the said matter, and sought protection against the infringement of his rights. In this case, the plaintiff successfully made out a case of passing-off, and raised arguments that satisfy the conditions of passing off. One such argument raised was that, the Plaintiff being a well-known personality, any use of his name/caricature/image/style of delivering dialogues would amount to infringement of his personality rights as well as passing off. Further, the said matter was a prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, as unauthorised use leads to a misrepresentation of the Plaintiffs persona, in turn causing irreparable harm to his goodwill and reputation, which he has built over many years.

Another case, where the issue of personality rights was examined, was the 2003 Delhi High Court case, ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises. The Delhi High Court in this case specifically held that Personality Rights are reserved for individuals only and not for events or entities. In this case the Plaintiffs pleaded that ICC events associated with the 2003 ICC World Cup have acquired a “persona” or “identity” of their own, and are entitled to an injunction against the Defendants, as the advertisement by the Defendants associating themselves with the plaintiff is passing-off of the Plaintiffs ‘Persona’. The court, however, opined that “The right of publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in an individual or in any indicia of an individual’s personality like his name, personality trait, signature, voice, etc.” The court also quoted the definition of “persona” from the Black’s Law Dictionary, seventh edition to mean “a person; an individual human being”. In 2012, the Delhi High Court in Titan Industries Limited v Ramkumar Jewellers, dealt with personality rights in the context of misleading advertisements. In this case the Plaintiff had a well-known brand ‘Tanishq” in relation to jewellery, and had engaged celebrities, Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mrs. Jaya Bachchan in an agreement for services wherein the couple had assigned all of their personality rights to the plaintiff to be used in advertisements in all media, including print and video. The defendant, without seeking permission from the Plaintiff or the Celebrity couple, had erected a hoarding identical to that of the plaintiff, featuring the same photograph of the celebrity couple as displayed on the plaintiff’s billboard. The court held that the not only was the Defendant liable for infringement of the plaintiff’s copyright in the advertisement, but also, misappropriating the personality rights of the celebrities Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mrs. Jaya Bachchan.

A noteworthy case, pertaining to image rights in the context of domain names was decided by the Delhi High Court in Jaitley v Network Solutions Private Limited. The Plaintiff, renowned lawyer and political leader Mr. Arun Jaitley, wished to register the domain name ‘arunjaitley.com’, which the defendants had already registered. On discovering this fact, the Plaintiff requested the Defendants to transfer the domain name, as it had not been renewed and was pending deletion. In response the Defendants transferred the domain name to an auction site for sale to any third party. The Delhi High Court granted an injunction in favour of the Plaintiff restraining the defendants from transferring, alienating or offering for sale of the domain name ‘arunjaitley.com’ to any third party and the creation of any third-party interest therein. The court opined that as far as eminent personalities are concerned, it is important to protect the celebrity/personality rights, in order to prevent the misuse in the marketplace of their identity by individuals/entities that have no genuine link to those names and personas.

In conclusion, Celebrities in India can resort to the following remedies when their personality rights have been infringed:

• Violation of the tort of privacy seeking injunction and damages in cases where the fact situation allows for including a privacy claim.
• Passing-off and infringement actions seeking injunction and damages.
• Defamation – civil or criminal seeking injunction and damages.
• Tort of unlawful interference with business or the procurement of breach of contract where the plaintiff celebrity has a subsisting contract with a third party to commercially exploit his images/ likeness in any manner.