New Delhi, The Delhi High Court has restrained various entities from using Jackie Shroff's name, including aliases like "Jackie" and "Jaggu Dadda" and voice over images, for commercial purposes without permission.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in an interim order dated May 15, said entities selling wallpapers, T-shirts and posters etc on e-commerce websites operating artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot platforms were prima facie violating the Act rules. Personality and publicity rights exploit and misuse his characteristics.
The judge also passed directions against two content creators who published Shroff's video with "extremely indecent words and abuses".
The court said that Shroff is a celebrity and this status naturally confers on him certain rights over his personality and related characteristics."The plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte injunction. The balance of convenience is in his favor and against defendants Nos. 3-4, 6-7, 13 and 14. If injunction is not granted in the present case I would cause irreparable harm/loss to the plaintiff, not only financially but also to her right to live with dignity,” the court said.
"It becomes clear that on prima facie basis the alleged activities of certain defendants have resulted in commercial gain through unauthorized exploitation of the personality of the plaintiff. Such defendants have used the name, image, voice and other distinctive features of the plaintiff Permission, thereby violating their personality and publicity rights,” I said.The court issued notices to some other entities regarding alleged violation of their rights, including a YouTube content creator hosting allegedly defamatory videos and a restaurant owner using the registered trademark "Bhidu" for his outlet. Is.
With regard to the video, the court said that the actor's portrayal did not reveal any falsehood. Rather, it made his existing public perception formidable and hence he would want to listen to the YouTuber before passing any order.
"The meme, a format similar to spoof or parody, is part of a growing comedy genre that takes advantage of the cultural resonance of public figures to create entertaining content. YouTubers are a growing community, and the substantial viewership of these videos has turned them into significant Revenue for the creators goes away, which underlines that such content is not only entertainment but also an important source of livelihood for a large section, especially the youth,'' the court said."Restricting such creative expressions by ordering respondent No. 5 to make similar videos or blocking these videos could have far-reaching consequences for this vibrant community. More seriously, it could set a precedent which Constrains freedom of expression, potentially preventing one from publicly expressing his or her right to free speech due to fear of legal consequences, the court said.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 15 and directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary instructions to telecom service providers and internet service providers to block the infringing URLs.
Some defendants said they had removed the allegedly offending merchandise and the court said they would be bound by undertaking.Shroff had approached the High Court earlier this month against the unlicensed use of his name and personality traits by several entities for commercial gain.
His lawyer objected to the "misuse" of his personality and promotion through the sale of merchandise and wallpapers, as well as the use of GIFs and AI.
He also alleged infringement of his trademark rights on the Marathi language "Bhidu".
Shroff, who was represented by lawyer Praveen Anand, argued that individuals cannot be allowed to mislead consumers into buying products into thinking that they are endorsed by the actor who has acted in over 200 films.
In support of his case, Shroff's lawyer had relied on orders passed by the high court in similar suits by actors Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in an interim order dated May 15, said entities selling wallpapers, T-shirts and posters etc on e-commerce websites operating artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot platforms were prima facie violating the Act rules. Personality and publicity rights exploit and misuse his characteristics.
The judge also passed directions against two content creators who published Shroff's video with "extremely indecent words and abuses".
The court said that Shroff is a celebrity and this status naturally confers on him certain rights over his personality and related characteristics."The plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of ex-parte injunction. The balance of convenience is in his favor and against defendants Nos. 3-4, 6-7, 13 and 14. If injunction is not granted in the present case I would cause irreparable harm/loss to the plaintiff, not only financially but also to her right to live with dignity,” the court said.
"It becomes clear that on prima facie basis the alleged activities of certain defendants have resulted in commercial gain through unauthorized exploitation of the personality of the plaintiff. Such defendants have used the name, image, voice and other distinctive features of the plaintiff Permission, thereby violating their personality and publicity rights,” I said.The court issued notices to some other entities regarding alleged violation of their rights, including a YouTube content creator hosting allegedly defamatory videos and a restaurant owner using the registered trademark "Bhidu" for his outlet. Is.
With regard to the video, the court said that the actor's portrayal did not reveal any falsehood. Rather, it made his existing public perception formidable and hence he would want to listen to the YouTuber before passing any order.
"The meme, a format similar to spoof or parody, is part of a growing comedy genre that takes advantage of the cultural resonance of public figures to create entertaining content. YouTubers are a growing community, and the substantial viewership of these videos has turned them into significant Revenue for the creators goes away, which underlines that such content is not only entertainment but also an important source of livelihood for a large section, especially the youth,'' the court said."Restricting such creative expressions by ordering respondent No. 5 to make similar videos or blocking these videos could have far-reaching consequences for this vibrant community. More seriously, it could set a precedent which Constrains freedom of expression, potentially preventing one from publicly expressing his or her right to free speech due to fear of legal consequences, the court said.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 15 and directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary instructions to telecom service providers and internet service providers to block the infringing URLs.
Some defendants said they had removed the allegedly offending merchandise and the court said they would be bound by undertaking.Shroff had approached the High Court earlier this month against the unlicensed use of his name and personality traits by several entities for commercial gain.
His lawyer objected to the "misuse" of his personality and promotion through the sale of merchandise and wallpapers, as well as the use of GIFs and AI.
He also alleged infringement of his trademark rights on the Marathi language "Bhidu".
Shroff, who was represented by lawyer Praveen Anand, argued that individuals cannot be allowed to mislead consumers into buying products into thinking that they are endorsed by the actor who has acted in over 200 films.
In support of his case, Shroff's lawyer had relied on orders passed by the high court in similar suits by actors Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor.
