What’s the news?

• The Delhi High Court this week allowed Kapoor’s pleas for protection of his personality rights from misuse by third parties. Rajinikanth’s name, Amitabh Bachchan’s baritone, and now Anil Kapoor’s style These are some of the personality rights that celebrities are trying to protect.

Central idea

• In recent times, celebrities have been increasingly vigilant about safeguarding their personality rights, which encompass elements such as their name, voice, signature, images, and distinctive features. The Delhi High Court’s recent decision to grant protection to Anil Kapoor’s personality rights from misuse by third parties has brought this issue into the limelight.

About personality rights

• Personality rights, often loosely referred to as the rights over one’s name, image, and unique characteristics, are crucial for celebrities.
• Many celebrities take proactive measures to protect their personality rights, including registering some of these distinctive aspects as trademarks.
• For example, Usain Bolt’s iconic bolting or lightning pose has been registered as a trademark, ensuring that only he or authorized parties can use it for commercial gain.
• The primary idea behind personality rights is to grant the individual the exclusive right to derive economic benefits from these distinctive features.
• Exclusivity is a critical factor in attracting commercial opportunities for celebrities, so unauthorized use by third parties can result in tangible financial losses.

Legal Protection for Personality Rights

• The law protects personality rights in India, although these rights are not explicitly mentioned in statutes. Instead, they are derived from related legal principles, primarily the right to privacy and the right to property.
• How the law safeguards personality rights in the absence of specific legislation?

• Right to Privacy and Right to Property: Personality rights are rooted in the broader concepts of the right to privacy and the right to property. These foundational rights form the basis for protecting an individual’s control over their personal identity and commercial interests.
• Application of Intellectual Property Concepts: Intellectual property principles, often used to protect trademarks, can be applied to safeguard personality rights. This includes preventing the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s identity or distinctive attributes for commercial purposes.
• Deterrence: Injunctions serve as a legal deterrent against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s identity. They prohibit specific activities or uses of the celebrity’s persona, helping protect their financial interests.
• Challenges in Enforcement: While injunctions provide legal protection, enforcing them can be challenging. Celebrities often need to issue takedown orders to online intermediaries like Google to remove unauthorized content. These legal processes can incur significant costs but may still be beneficial compared to the financial losses resulting from unauthorized use.

Precedents in Indian Courts

• Indian courts have established important precedents in cases involving the protection of personality rights, particularly in the absence of specific legislation explicitly addressing these rights. Here are some notable precedents set by Indian courts:

1. Amitabh Bachchan’s Case (November 2022):

• The Delhi High Court issued an injunction against the unauthorized use of Amitabh Bachchan’s personality rights. These included variations of his name, such as Big B, and his distinctive style, like addressing a computer as Computer ji and lock kiya jaye.
• The court relied on a 2012 order involving Bachchan, where Titan Industries had taken legal action against a jewelry store for using Bachchan’s images from a Tanishq advertisement. This precedent established the principle that personality rights can be protected in India.

1. Rajnikanth’s Case (2015):

• The Madras High Court’s judgment in a case involving actor Rajnikanth established that personality rights apply to individuals who have attained celebrity status.
• Rajnikanth had filed a lawsuit against the producers of the movie Main Hoon Rajnikanth, claiming that the film’s use of his name, image, and style of delivering dialogue infringed on his personality rights.
• The court’s observation that personality rights vest in those who have become celebrities has been cited as an important precedent in subsequent cases.

What is an injunction?

• An injunction is a legal remedy issued by a court that orders a person or entity to either perform a specific action or refrain from doing a particular act.
• In the given content, when unauthorized third parties exploit a celebrity’s personality rights for commercial purposes, celebrities have the option to seek legal recourse by moving to court and requesting an injunction. An injunction is a court order that restrains or prevents the unauthorized use of these rights.
• It serves as a legal deterrent against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of a celebrity’s identity, helping to protect their financial interests.

Anil Kapoor’s Case

• Anil Kapoor’s recent case before the Delhi High Court resulted in an ex-parte, omnibus injunction against 16 entities using his name, likeness, image, and even deploying technological tools like artificial intelligence for commercial gain.
• An ex-parte injunction, issued without hearing the opposing party, and an omnibus injunction, which covers unauthorized uses not explicitly mentioned in the plea, serve as deterrents against misuse.

Challenges in enforcing injunctions

• Tracking Misuse: Even with an injunction in place, it is not easy to monitor and track all instances of unauthorized use of a celebrity’s personality rights. This is especially challenging in the digital age, where content can spread quickly across various platforms.
• Online Content: Unauthorized content can proliferate rapidly on the internet and social media platforms. Identifying and taking action against each instance of infringement can be a time-consuming and resource-intensive process.
• Global Reach: The internet allows content to be accessible globally. Celebrities may need to address unauthorized use not only within their own jurisdiction but also in other countries where their image and likeness are being exploited.
• Costs: Enforcing injunctions often involves legal expenses, including attorney fees and court costs. Pursuing legal action against multiple infringing parties can be financially burdensome, particularly for individuals.
• Response from Online Intermediaries: When unauthorized content is hosted or distributed through online intermediaries like search engines or social media platforms, getting these platforms to comply with takedown requests can be challenging. It may require legal processes and negotiations.

Criteria for Granting Injunctions

• In the Titan case, the HC, in its order, listed out the basic elements comprising the liability for infringement of the right of publicity.

• Validity of the right: The plaintiff must possess an enforceable right in their identity or persona.
• Identifiability of the celebrity: The defendant’s unauthorized use must make the celebrity easily identifiable.
• Intent to trade upon the celebrity’s identity: Evidence of the defendant’s intent to profit from the celebrity’s identity is crucial.

Conclusion

• The Delhi High Court’s decision in Anil Kapoor’s case highlights the evolving legal landscape surrounding personality rights in India. Celebrities are increasingly turning to the courts to protect their unique identities and the financial interests associated with them. As these cases continue to shape the legal framework, celebrities can seek redress against those who seek to exploit their personality rights for commercial gain.

Get an IAS/IPS ranker as your 1: 1 personal mentor for UPSC 2024

Attend Now