The Delhi High Court has recently permanently restrained several individuals and businesses, along with unidentified infringers, from using actor Amitabh Bachchan's name, image, voice, likeness or any other aspect of his persona without his permission.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the decree on November 5, holding that the unauthorised uses of Bachchan's identity were made for commercial gain, without his consent, and falsely suggested his endorsement.
“The impugned uses employ the plaintiff's very name and photographs, for commercial gain and without his consent, and falsely suggest his endorsement,” the court observed.
The suit arose from several instances of alleged misuse of Bachchan's identity. One individual had developed a mobile application titled Amitabh Bachchan Video Call. Another had circulated WhatsApp messages bearing Bachchan's photograph to promote a purported Kaun Banega Crorepati lottery. A publisher had also sold a general knowledge quiz book featuring his image on the cover.
Other instances involved the sale of T-shirts and wall posters bearing his photographs. Two individuals had also registered the domain names amitabhbachchan.com and amitabhbachchan.in.
Four parties, including the application developer, quiz book publisher, wall-poster seller and one of the domain name registrants, entered into a settlement with Bachchan. They acknowledged his publicity and privacy rights and undertook not to use his name, image, voice, likeness or any other aspect of his persona without his express permission. Their undertakings also bind their legal heirs, representatives and assigns-in-business.
The court separately decreed the suit against four others who had failed to appear despite being served and had not filed written statements. It also extended the decree to unidentified infringers, noting that the misuse of Bachchan's persona continued through websites, applications, posters and messaging platforms, often involving persons whose identities could not be traced.
Relying on its earlier decision in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, the court recognised that “the right to control commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity”.
It found that the plaint disclosed no disputed question of fact requiring a trial. The court also held that requiring Bachchan to lead ex-parte evidence would serve no purpose, as it would merely repeat the contents of the plaint.
The suit was accordingly decreed and disposed of.
For Amitabh Bachchan: Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi with Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Dhruv Anand, Bhavya Verma, Unnati Gambani, Sanjeevi Sishadri, Shreya Sethi, Krisna Gambhir and Ritvik Sharma
For Defendants: Advocates S. C. Singhal and Parth Mahajan for D-1; Advocate Vinay Mohan Sharma for D-3; Advocates Tina Garg, M. K. Ghosh, Annirudh Gupta along with Siddharth Gupta, AR for D-5; Advocates Kushal Kumr and Tanya Manik for D-8