The Digital Identity Battleground: Personality Rights, Trademark Law, and the “Captain Cool” Precedent

Special

The Digital Identity Battleground: Personality Rights, Trademark Law, and the “Captain Cool” Precedent

Indrabha Biswas | November 2025

INTRODUCTION: THE COMMODIFICATION OF IDENTITY IN THE DIGITAL AGE

In today’s hyper-connected world, personal identity has transformed into a valuable commercial asset, blurring the lines between private persona and public property. The rise of social media, deep fake technology, and digital collectibles has created unprecedented vulnerabilities where individual identities can be exploited at scale. This complex landscape demands urgent legal evolution, particularly in jurisdictions like India where personality rights remain largely judge-made law. The high-profile trademark battle over MS Dhoni’s “Captain Cool” moniker exemplifies the collision between cultural association and legal ownership in this new era.

Conceptual Foundations: Defining Personality Rights

Personality rights (or “publicity rights”) empower individuals to control the commercial exploitation of their identity markers. These encompass: – Traditional elements: Name, image, likeness, signature, and voice.

Emerging digital claims: Social media handles, biometric data, digital avatars, and AI-generated replicas.
Behavioural attributes: Distinctive gestures (e.g., Usain Bolt’s “lightning bolt” pose) and catchphrases

Unlike copyright or patents, personality rights emerge from fundamental rights to privacy and dignity. India’s Supreme Court in “Justice K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India” (2017) recognized privacy as intrinsic to Article 21, creating constitutional grounding for these claims. However, unlike the U.S. (where 30+ states have statutory publicity rights) or France (with its robust Image Rights framework), India lacks dedicated legislation, forcing reliance on trademark law, torts, and constitutional interpretation.

The “Captain Cool” Case Study: Trademarking Cultural Identity

MS Dhoni’s 2023 trademark application for “Captain Cool”- a nickname bestowed by fans and media- spotlights the tension between organic cultural association and formal IP ownership. The application (filed under Class 41 for sports training/ coaching) was accepted by India’s Trademark Registry in June 2025 despite prior registration by Prabha Skill Sports (OPC) Pvt Ltd. The Key legal controversies include:

Procedural Irregularities: The Registry allegedly failed to notify Prabha Sports about Dhoni’s application, violating conflict examination protocols.
Distinctiveness Paradox: KAnalysis Law Firm’s opposition argues “Captain Cool” is a generic phrase describing leadership attributes, not uniquely identifying Dhoni.
Use Claim Ambiguity: Dhoni’s application stated “proposed use” while later affidavits asserted use since 2008, yet no evidence was initially provided.

This case crystallizes a fundamental IP dilemma: Can celebrities monopolize language shaped by public adoration?

As Nilanshu Shekhar (from KAnalysis) argues: “Trademarks are about distinctiveness and source identification— not personal acclaim”;

Conversely, Dhoni’s legal team contends that his decade-long association with the term has transformed it into a brand identifier.

Global Jurisdictional Divides: Personality Rights Compared

Personality rights recognition varies dramatically worldwide, creating compliance minefields for global digital platforms:

United States: Treats publicity rights as transferable property (e.g., California protects rights for 70 years post-mortem). Landmark cases like Zacchini v. Scripps- Howard (1977) uphold exclusivity in commercial exploitation.
European Union: Prioritizes data privacy under GDPR. The “right to be forgotten” (Article 17) allows de-indexing of personal information from search engines, as established in Google v. Spanish DPA (2014).
China: Civil Code (2021) explicitly protects against unauthorized use of names, portraits, or voice, as demonstrated in Michael Jordan v. Qiaodan Sports where translations of “Jordan” were deemed infringing.

India’s approach remains ‘ad hoc and celebrity-centric’. In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi (2022), the Delhi HC prohibited AI-generated voice clones, while Anil Kapoor (2024) barred deep fakes and merchandise exploitation. Yet noncelebrities rarely succeed in similar claims, revealing a protection gap.

Digital Age Threats: AI, Deep fakes, and the Metaverse

Emerging technologies have exponentially increased personality rights violations:

Deep fake Exploitation: A 2025 study showed 96% of deep fake videos target celebrities for non-consensual pornography or fraudulent endorsements.
NFT Ambiguities: The Digital Collectibles v. Galactus Funware case involved cricket NFTs using player likenesses without permission, testing boundaries of “fair use” in digital art.
Metaverse Commercialization: Virtual concerts and avatar merchandising (e.g., Travis Scott in Fortnite) raise questions about jurisdiction and royalty distribution.

Regulatory Pathways: DPDPA as a Potential Solution

India’s Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDPA) offers tools to address digital identity abuse through data-centric governance:

Broad Personal Data Definition: Section 2(t) includes “image, voice, [and] any characteristic of identity”.
Consent Mandate: Sections 4(1) and 6 require explicit permission for commercial data processing.
Right to Erasure: Section 12 allows deletion demands when data is no longer necessary.

In the Dhoni context, DPDPA could potentially resolve “Captain Cool” disputes by:

Requiring platforms to verify consent before hosting merchandise using personal identifiers
Allowing takedowns of unauthorized deep fakes under “data accuracy” provisions
Enabling compensation for emotional harm via Section 32 penalties

However, limitations persist. The DPDPA exempts “publicly available data,” creating loopholes for memes or journalistic content. Legislative upgrades like the U.S. NO FAKES Act (proposing 5-year postmortem rights) show pathways forward.

CONCLUSION: TOWARD BALANCED IDENTITY GOVERNANCE

The “Captain Cool” trademark saga is more than a celebrity quirk- it signals India’s struggle to reconcile cultural expression with commercial exclusivity in the digital economy. As identities fragment across physical, virtual, and algorithmic spaces, legal frameworks must evolve beyond trademark law’s limitations:

Legislative Action: India needs a Personality Rights Act codifying postmortem duration, digital applicability, and non-celebrity protections.
Technological Solutions: Block chain-based consent ledgers and AI watermarking could automate compliance.
Global Alignment: Harmonizing with EU’s GDPR and U.S. state laws will ease cross-border enforcement.

As MS Dhoni’s trademark opposition unfolds, it underscores a universal truth: In the digital era, identity is both self expression and economic infrastructure. Protecting it demands more than reactive litigation—it requires reimagining ownership for an age where every individual can be a brand, and every nickname a potential trademark.

Disclaimer: Please note that the views in this article are solely of the author and not of the company.

About Author

Indrabha Biswas

Indrabha Biswas is a legal counsel currently working with Wockhardt Ltd. He has recently graduated from Symbiosis International University completing the course of BA.LLB (5 year). During the course of his graduation degree, he has interned in various law firms ranging from litigation, corporate and immigration. He has also interned in banks and in-house in the retail sector. Having a diverse experience, he always tries to bring a 360° perspective to every challenge he faces.