Delhi High Court Questions Merchandiser's Authority To Sell Akkineni Nagarjuna-Branded T-Shirts

The Delhi High Court on Tuesday questioned a merchandise seller's claim that it was lawfully selling Akkineni Nagarjuna-branded T-shirts, after the defendant admitted it had no direct agreement with either the actor or the production house and could not immediately produce documents establishing its claimed authority.

The exchange took place before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in veteran Telugu actor Akkineni Nagarjuna's personality rights suit against entities allegedly using his name, image, and persona without authorisation.

The court had previously passed an intreim injunction on September 25, 2025 restraining defendants from exploiting his name, likeness, and persona through any medium, including AI and deepfakes.

Trader, arrayed as Defendant No. 12, sought deletion from the array of parties, claiming it was the authorised merchandising partner for Nagarjuna's film The Ghost and therefore was not infringing the actor's rights.

Appearing for the defendant-trader, Shruti Iyer said the company had been engaged by marketing agency Walls and Trends, which in turn had an agreement with the production house.

“Your Lordships, we are the authorized merchandising partner for the film The Ghost. We have an agreement with a marketing agency who in turn have an agreement with the production house. We do not have an agreement with the production house per se,” she submitted.

Iyer also pointed to what she said was a social media post by Nagarjuna promoting the merchandise.

“The plaintiff themselves on their social media accounts… This is the Twitter account of the plaintiff. He says, please come and buy merchandise from my ID which is fully filming,” she argued.

Plaintiff's counsel Advocate Pravin Anand disputed the claim, telling the court he had repeatedly sought documentary proof.

“For three weeks, I've been asking, I've written two letters to them. One on the 20th of April and one yesterday, 11th of May. Please give me the agreement that you say you have so that we can resolve the matter,” Anand submitted.

He also questioned the documents already filed, saying the email relied on by the defendant was incomplete.

“If she says there is no contract, but that the email is the contract, then at least give me the full email,” he said.

As the court examined the defendant's claim, it noted that the defendant had no direct agreement with either Nagarjuna or the production house, and no written document showing the alleged link between the marketing agency and the production house had been placed before it.

“You are admitting that you don't have anything directly with the plaintiff. Correct? Not even with the production house. Yes. Then, where is the legitimacy coming from?” Justice Gedela asked.

The judge said the defendant would have to establish the legitimacy of its claim if it wanted to maintain that it was not infringing Nagarjuna's rights.

“You may not be infringing. Correct? But, you have to show that. Show that, no?... Merely by writing something, it won't help you,” the court orally observed.

Iyer then undertook to provide complete and legible copies of the documents relied upon, including screenshots and email communications, within one week. The court recorded the statement.

Anand told the court he would review the material before deciding whether a response to the defendant's deletion plea was necessary.

Separately, another defendant was deleted from the array of parties after informing the court that it had complied with the earlier order dated September 25, 2025. Actor's counsel said he had no objection.

The matter is next listed for hearing on August 3, 2026.