Bombay High Court
Sanjay S/O Girish Kumar Singh vs Karan Johar Also Known As Rahul Johar on 7 May, 2025
Author: M.S.Karnik
Bench: M. S. Karnik
2025:BHC-OS:7666-DB
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Digitally signed
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
URMILA by URMILA
PRAMOD
PRAMOD INGALE
Date:
INGALE 2025.05.07 COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025
14:58:38 +0530
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address at
204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Karan Johar also known as
Rahul Johar
An Indian Inhabitant having his
address At 29, Jains Arcade,
2nd floor, 14th Road, Khar (W),
Mumbai - 400 052.
2. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under
the companies act,
2013, CIN U93090DL2017PTC318057
having its registered office at
Z-107 Prem Nagar, Kashmiri Colony,
South West Delhi, Najafgarh,
Delhi India - 110043
And also at 204, 2nd floor,
Matranga Bldg., Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
3. Bablu Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address
at 204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg.,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. .... Respondents
1
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2025 22:17:12 :::
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 9929 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address at
204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ... Applicant
In the matter between
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address at
204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Karan Johar also known as
Rahul Johar
An Indian Inhabitant having his
address At 29, Jains Arcade,
2nd floor, 14th Road, Khar (W),
Mumbai - 400 052.
2. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under
the companies act,
2013, CIN U93090DL2017PTC318057
having its registered office at
Z-107 Prem Nagar, Kashmiri Colony,
South West Delhi, Najafgarh,
Delhi India - 110043
And also at 204, 2nd floor,
Matranga Bldg., Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
2
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2025 22:17:12 :::
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
3. Bablu Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address
at 204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg.,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. .... Respondents
WITH
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 10124 OF 2025
IN
COMMERCIAL APPEAL (L) NO. 9786 OF 2025
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 17865 OF 2024
IN
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 19862 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT (L) NO. 17863 OF 2024
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address at
204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ... Applicant
In the matter between
Sanjay S/o. Girish Kumar Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address at
204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. ... Appellant
Versus
1. Karan Johar also known as
Rahul Johar
An Indian Inhabitant having his
address At 29, Jains Arcade,
2nd floor, 14th Road, Khar (W),
Mumbai - 400 052.
2. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd.
A company incorporated under
the companies act,
2013, CIN U93090DL2017PTC318057
3
::: Uploaded on - 07/05/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2025 22:17:12 :::
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
having its registered office at
Z-107 Prem Nagar, Kashmiri Colony,
South West Delhi, Najafgarh,
Delhi India - 110043
And also at 204, 2nd floor,
Matranga Bldg., Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai.
3. Bablu Singh
An Indian Inhabitant having his address
at 204, 2nd floor, Matranga Bldg.,
Opp. Mega Mall,
Andheri (W), Mumbai. .... Respondents
****
Mr. Ashok M. Saraogi a/w Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sushil
Upadhyay, Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Singh, Ms. Priti Rao,
Ms. Kavya Smriti, for the Appellant.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Rashmin
Khandekar, Parag Khandhar, Pranita Saboo, Ms. Anaheeta
Verma, Pratyusha Dhoda i/b. DSK Legal, for Respondent No.1.
****
CORAM : ALOK ARADHE, CJ &
M. S. KARNIK, J.
RESERVED ON : 15th APRIL, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 7th MAY, 2025
JUDGMENT (PER M.S.KARNIK, J.) :
1. The Appellant/original defendant No.2 in this
Appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
challenges the order dated 7th March 2025 passed by the
learned Single Judge of this Court. Before the learned Single
Judge the present Respondent No.1 - original plaintiff filed an
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
Interim Application seeking interim injunction restraining
the Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3, the original
defendants from using the name of the Respondent
No.1 - plaintiff - "Karan Johar" together, or in parts and from
using the attributes of the personality of the Respondent No.1
in the title of the cinematographic film "Shaadi Ke Director
Karan Aur Johar" / "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar" ("said
film" for short), in the trailers annexed with the Plaint and in
any other promotional materials including that which is posted
on social media platforms, website of the Appellant,
hoardings/advertisements in public places. The said film is co-
produced by Appellant No.1 and Respondent No.2.
The said film is written and directed by Respondent
No.3 - original defendant No.3.
COMMERCIAL IPR SUIT :-
2. The Commercial IPR Suit was urgently filed before
the learned Single Judge as the said film was scheduled to be
released in theatres on the next day when the application for
ad-interim relief was moved i.e. 14th June 2024. The Plaint
proceeds on the footing that on 5th June 2024, to the complete
shock and surprise of the Respondent No.1, he came across
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
the trailer of the said film to be released in theatres on 14 th
June 2024. A cease and desist notice dated 6 th June 2024 was
issued by the Respondent No.1 through his advocates to the
Appellant and Respondent Nos.2 and 3 inter alia calling upon
them to immediately cease and desist from using the
Respondent No.1's name in the said film in any manner
whatsoever, and to immediately cease and desist from
releasing the said film until the Appellant changes or removes
the title of the said film as set out in the notice. In view of the
Appellant failing to reply to the cease and desist notice
despite service, the application was moved by Respondent
No.1 for ad-interim reliefs. By an order dated 13 th June 2024
the learned Single Judge granted ad-interim reliefs in terms of
prayer clauses (a) and (b) of the Interim Application.
3. The Appellant filed an application under Order
XXXIX Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for vacating
the ad-interim order. The application made for vacating the
ad-interim order was treated as a reply and the Interim
Application filed by the Respondent No.1 came to be heard by
the learned Single Judge. The case of the Respondent No.1 as
set out in the Plaint is as under :-
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
The Respondent No.1 is a well known personality
and is entitled to enforce his "personality" and "publicity"
rights. The Respondent No.1 is a highly credited and leading
Indian Director, Producer, Writer Filmmaker and Television
Personality primarily working in the media and entertainment
industry and is the recipient of several awards and accolades.
The Respondent No.1 has been honoured with Padma Shree,
the countries 4th highest Civilian Award by the Government of
India in the year 2020. The Respondent has directed and/or
produced several blockbuster films including Kuch Kuch Hota
Hai, Kabhi Khushi Kabhi Gham, Kal Ho Na Ho, Dear Zindagi,
Brahmastra, Student of the Year, Rocky or Rani Ki Prem Kahani
etc. The Respondent No.1 has appeared as a Judge in reality
competition shows viz. Jhalak Dikhla Jaa, India's Got Talent,
India's Next Superstar, Dil Hai Hindustani and Hunarbaaz :
Desh Ki Shaan. The Respondent No.1 is also the host of the
popular talk show "Koffee with Karan" for which he has also
won the award for the Best Anchor - Talk / Chat Show.
4. The Respondent No.1 has established an esteem
and reputation for directing and producing cinematic films of
romantic genere, boasting larger than life wedding scenes and
is highly credited for making films of this genere. The
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
Respondent No.1 is also well known for directing and
producing family oriented films and films based on the
concept of marriage suitable for all audiences of all ages. The
movies directed by the Respondent No.1 generally contains
scenes where marriages are shown in grandeur and therefore
leave a strong impact in the minds of the viewers. Therefore,
audience associates films in or around the grand marriages /
weddings scenes and in or around marriage as the main
theme of the film with the Respondent No.1. The Respondent
No.1 is stated to have garnered immense goodwill and
reputation in the media and entertainment industry in India
and globally. The Respondent No.1's name has become a
brand name and has obtained a brand value and "Karan"
"Johar" when used together as done by the Appellant in
relation to the said film clearly identifies the Respondent No.1.
The Respondent No.1 being a well known public figure has
undoubtedly obtained a celebrity status and he is identifiable
by his name itself by public at large. The Respondent No.1
claims that his name has become his brand name and he has
economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his
discretion. It is the Respondent No.1's case that while each
individual has a right to personality and publicity it is clearly
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
identifiable in case of a well known individual. The Appellant
has used the Respondent No.1's name and attempted to
associate it with a film that is sleazy, B-grade, in bad taste and
one which is laced with innuendos that are directly
attributable to the Respondent No.1. The Respondent No.1 is
entitled in law to claim that his name must not be associated
with any film without his consent.
5. The learned Single Judge after considering the reply
and the materials on record by the impugned order dated 7 th
March 2025 held that the Appellant unauthorizedly used the
Respondent No.1's name and personality attributes in the title
of the said film which prima facie violates the Respondent
No.1's personality rights, publicity rights and right to privacy.
Learned Single Judge further held that the Respondent No.1
has been able to establish that by using his brand name, the
Appellant is attempting to ride upon the goodwill and
reputation of the Respondent No.1 to earn unjust profits. For
the reasons mentioned in the impugned order the learned
Single Judge was of the opinion that a strong prima facie case
has been made out by the Respondent No.1 and that the
Appellant has infringed the Respondent No.1's personality and
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
publicity rights as well as use of the brand name of the
Respondent No.1. The Interim Application therefore was made
absolute in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) which
read thus :-
"(a) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this
suit, pass an order and direction of temporary
injunction restraining the Defendants and their
associates/representatives from using the Plaintiff's
name or any other attributes of the Plaintiff or
reference to the name of Plaintiff "Karan Johar",
together or in parts or in any other manner, in the
title of the said Film or in the promotion,
endorsement and publicity of the said Film, directly
or indirectly or in any manner whatsoever, including
but not limited to all goods, promotional materials,
advertisements, film posters, letterheads, signs,
labels and all other things produced by the
Defendants, or on behalf of the Defendants, which
may be in the possession, custody or control of the
Defendants, which are intended to be sold,
promoted or otherwise distributed in relation to the
said Film;
(b) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this
suit, pass an order and direction of temporary
injunction restraining the Defendants and their
associates/representatives, from releasing the said
Film on any mode or medium whatsoever including
in theatres or running any promotional materials in
relation to the said Film on any mode or social media
platform, including but not limited to, the said
Trailers, until the Defendants remove the name of
Plaintiff "Karan Johar", together or in parts, or his
attributes from title of the said Film;
(c) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this
suit, Pass an order and direction of temporary
injunction restraining the Defendants and their
associates/representatives, from using the Plaintiff's
name or any other attributes of the Plaintiff on the
said Website owned and operated by the Defendants
or by the Defendants' associates, related entities or
any other platform /website where the said Film is
promoted and/or publicized directly or indirectly in
any manner whatsoever, as well as on other social
media platforms including YouTube and Instagram;
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
(d) Pending the hearing and final disposal of this
suit, direct the Defendants to remove the name of
the Plaintiff and other attributes of the Plaintiff or
any references to the Plaintiff, whether direct or
indirect, from the said Trailers and from any other
promotional materials including that which is posted
on social media platforms, the said Website,
hoarding/advertisements at public places, if any,
whatsoever;"
6. In challenge to the impugned order, Mr. Ashok
Saraogi, learned counsel for the Appellant submitted as under
:-
The said film which was scheduled to be released
on 14th June 2024 in as many as 89 cinema halls could not be
screened as a result of the ex-parte ad-interim order.
The Appellant had to suffer huge losses as a result of the
ex-parte motion made by the Respondent No.1. The said film
was under production since the year 2019 and which was
known to each and every person in the film trade. In such
circumstances, it was not at all necessary to have the
screening of the said film stalled on the eve of its release.
The Appellant had registered the title in respect of the said
film with the Producer's association which works along with
the other Associations and accordingly, a certificate dated
22nd May 2023 was issued. The Appellant - Sanjay had also
entered into necessary agreement with various parties, artists
etc. and he spent an amount of Rs.3 crores for the purpose of
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
production of the said film. The film was noticed and seen by
many persons and therefore in these circumstances the
Respondent No.1's approaching the Court to stall the release
of the film at the last minute was a request which the learned
Single Judge ought not to have entertained. The Appellant
had also applied for grant of necessary censor certificate in
respect of the film as well as for the trailer which came to be
granted by the Censor Board. Since the month of September
2023 the said film and/or part thereof which is known as show
reel and/or trailer has been uploaded on various social medias
and the same has been seen by all concerned. The
Respondent No.1 was well aware about the production of the
said film and despite the same he had chosen to wait till the
last moment i.e. a day before the said film is due for release.
The said film has nothing to do with the name of the
Respondent No.1 as the name of two characters of the film
which are the central characters of the said film is "Karan" and
"Johar". The Respondent No.1 cannot claim a monopoly in
respect of the name "Karan" "Johar" which are commonly
used and it cannot be associated only with the Respondent
No.1. The entire story line indicates and also confirms the fact
that the generic names are given to the characters of the said
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
film and has nothing to do with the Respondent No.1. There is
a wide difference in the title and the name of the Respondent
No.1 and the question of identifying the title of the said film
with the name of the Respondent No.1 does not arise. The Suit
proceeds on the footing that the Respondent No.1 is having
his rights as a celebrity. There is no concept like celebrity
rights. The film of the Appellant does not even resemble to the
actual name and/or pet name of the Respondent No.1 and
even the subject matter of the film has nothing to do with the
name and personality of the Respondent No.1 in any manner
whatsoever. The entire film is fictional and nowhere the
Appellant claimed that the film is produced on the Respondent
No.1. The Appellant had in fact suggested to the learned
Single Judge that he is willing to accept whatever suggestions
have been given except the change in the name of the film.
The Appellant corrected the poster in respect of the said film
in order to differentiate the name and character of the
Respondent No.1 in the film. The personality rights and/or a
personal right cannot come in the way of the Appellant in the
production of the said film. There is no challenge to the censor
board certificate issued by the Central Board of Film
Certification (CBFC). Once the film is censored, the Appellant
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
had every right to release the said film and there was no
occasion for grant of any injunction against the release of the
film. The learned Single Judge has not appreciated the
decisions relied upon by the Appellant and the Respondent
No.1 in its correct perspective. The finding of the learned
Single Judge that the name "Karan Johar" is a peculiar name
coupled with his popularity as a well-known producer and
actor in the Bollywood industry is erroneous and contrary to
the materials on record.
7. Mr. Saraogi relied upon the following decisions in
support of his submissions :-
1. D. M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. vs. Baby
Gift House & Ors.1
2. ICC Development (International) Ltd. vs.
Arvee Enterprises and Anr.2
3. Titan Industries Ltd. vs. M/s. Ramkumar
Jewellers.3
4. Mr. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad vs. M/s. Varsha
Productions.4
5. Anil Kapoor vs. Simply Life India and
Others.5
1 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790
2 2003 SCC OnLine Del 2
3 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382
4 (2015) 2 Mad LJ 548
5 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
6. R. Rajagopal and Ors. Vs. State of Tamil
Nadu and Ors.6
7. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie
Shroff vs. Peppy Store and Others.7
8. Arijit Singh vs. Codible Ventures LLP and
Others.8
9. Hamdard National Foundation & Anr. vs.
Hussain Dalal & Ors.9
10. Prakash Jha Productions vs. Bata India
Limited & Ors.10
11. Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A.
Saraogi and Others.11
8. Mr. Andhyarujina, learned Senior Advocate for
Respondent No.1, on the other hand invited our attention to
the findings of the learned Single Judge which according to
him do not warrant any interference. Learned Senior Advocate
argued in support of the findings of the learned Single Judge.
9. Before we proceed to analyse the impugned order
of the learned Single Judge in the context of the submissions
made by learned counsel, we find it worth referring to some of
the key decisions having a material bearing on our opinion. At
6 AIR 1995 SC 264
7 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664
8 2024 SCC OnLine Bom 2445
9 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2289
10 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5458
11 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
the outset a reference needs to be made to the celebrated
decision of the Supreme Court in Justice K. S. Puttaswamy
(Retd) and another vs. Union of India and others 12.
The separate concurring opinion of His Lordship Sanjay Kaul, J.
is significant in the context of the present case. His Lordship
dealt with the issue of privacy as a right, as an important core
of any individual existence. The observations in paragraph
613, 614 and 615 are significant which read thus :-
"613. The challenges to protect privacy have
increased manifold. The observations made in the
context of the need for law to change, by Bhagwati, J.,
as he then was, in National Textile Workers' Union v.
P.R. Ramakrishnan would equally apply to the
requirements of interpretation of the Constitution in
the present context: (SCC p. 255, para 9)
"9. ... We cannot allow the dead hand of the
past to stifle the growth of the living present.
Law cannot stand still; it must change with the
changing social concepts and values. If the bark
that protects the tree fails to grow and expand
along with the tree, it will either choke the tree
or if it is a living tree, it will shed that bark and
grow a new living bark for itself.
Similarly, if the law fails to respond to the needs
of changing society, then either it will stifle the
growth of the society and choke its progress or
if the society is vigorous enough, it will cast
away the law which stands in the way of its
growth. Law must therefore constantly be on
the move adapting itself to the fast-
changing society and not lag behind."
614. It is wrong to consider that the concept of the
supervening spirit of justice manifesting in different
forms to cure the evils of a new age is unknown to
Indian history. Lord Shri Krishna declared in Chapter 4
Text 8 of The Bhagavad Gita thus:
" ifj=k.kk;lk/kwuka fouk"kk;pnq"d`rke~ |
/keZlaLFkkiukFkkZ; lEHkokfe ;qxs ;qxs ||"
12 (2017) 10 SCC 1
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
The meaning of this profound statement, when viewed
after a thousand generations is this: That each age
and each generation brings with it the challenges and
tribulations of the times. But that supreme spirit of
justice manifests itself in different eras, in different
continents and in different social situations, as
different values to ensure that there always exists the
protection and preservation of certain eternally
cherished rights and ideals. It is a reflection of this
divine "Brooding spirit of the law", "the collective
conscience", "the intelligence of a future day" that
has found mention in the ideals enshrined in inter alia,
Articles 14 and 21, which together serve as the heart
stones of the Constitution. The spirit that finds
enshrinement in these articles manifests and
reincarnates itself in ways and forms that protect the
needs of the society in various ages, as the values of
liberty, equality, fraternity, dignity, and various other
constitutional values, constitutional principles. It
always grows stronger and covers within its sweep the
great needs of the times. This spirit can neither
remain dormant nor static and can never be allowed
to fossilise.
615. An issue like privacy could never have been
anticipated to acquire such a level of importance
when the Constitution was being contemplated. Yet,
today, the times we live in necessitate that it be
recognised not only as a valuable right, but as a right
fundamental in constitutional jurisprudence."
10. In the context of privacy-right to control
information, in paragraph 625 His Lordship observed that
every individual should have a right to be able to exercise
control over his/her own life and image as portrayed to the
world and to control commercial use of his/her identity.
This also means that an individual may be permitted to
prevent others from using his image, name and other aspects
of his/her personal life and identity for commercial purposes
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
without his/her consent. Then in paragraph 626 His Lordship
observed that aside from the economic justifications for such
a right, it is also justified as protecting individual autonomy
and personal dignity. The right protects an individual's free,
personal conception of the 'self.' The right of publicity
implicates a person's interest in autonomous self definition,
which prevents others from interfering with the meanings and
values that the public associates with her.
11. In an article titled 'A Cause Célébre : Publicity
Rights in India' by Nina R. Nariman13, the author says that the
tort of publicity has been recognised in various jurisdictions
abroad, with different facets of the tort being legally
recognised in different jurisdictions. In India, the tort of
publicity (interchangeably known as "the tort of personality")
has been recognised in a piecemeal manner, looking to the
peculiar facts of the case before the court. This article aims to
analyse the theoretical basis for the right of publicity, and its
remedy, the publicity tort, and the practical implications
thereof on the development of this unique tort in India.
The most famous conception of property as a right is that of
Blackstone : the right of property; or that sole and despotic
13 Advocate practising at the Supreme Court of India, and High Court of Delhi; LLB from the Campus Law Centre,
Faculty of Law, Delhi University and LLM from Harvard Law School.
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
dominion which one man claims and exercises over the
external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of
any other individual in the universe.14 This conception of
property as the "sole and despotic dominion" of the individual
is wide enough to take within its sweep the common law of
torts as well.15 However, this interpretation of the right to
property is not universally accepted.
12. According to the author the concept of a property
right which would include in its sweep a right to privacy
appears to have stemmed from the very article which brought
the right to privacy to the fore. Warren and Brandies had
stated in 1890 : The right of property in its widest sense,
including all possession, including all rights and privileges, and
hence embracing the right to an inviolate personality, affords
alone that broad basis upon which the protection which the
individual demands can be rested. 16 The article then goes on
to discuss the publicity rights abroad.
13. From the pleadings and the materials, prima facie,
it does appear that the Respondent No.1 has garnered
14 William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England (1809 Vol. II, Book 2, 15th Edn.) Ch 1, 2 cited in
Pavlos Eleftheriadis, "The Analysis of Property Rights", 16 Oxford J Legal Stud 31 (1996) (hereinafter referred to
as "P. Eleftheriadis, Property Rights") and Theodore M. Benditt, "private Land Ownership and its Limitations",
Public Affairs Quarterly, Vol. 29, No.3, 2015, 297-312 at p.298.
15 For instance, see John Oberdiek (Ed.) Philosophical Foundations of the Law of Torts, (United Kingdom: OUP
Oxford, 2014) at p. xxxvi. See also Shyamkrishna Balganesh, "Debunking Blackstonian Copyright", The Yale
Law Journal, Vol. 118, No.6 (April, 2009), pp. 1126-181.
16 Warren and Brandeis, "Privacy" at p.221.
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
immense goodwill and reputation in the media and
entertainment industry in India and globally. The Respondent
No.1's name has become a brand name and has obtained a
brand value. The names "Karan" "Johar" when used together
as done by the Appellant in relation to the said film clearly
identifies the Respondent No.1. Respondent No.1 is a well
known public figure and he is identifiable by his name itself by
public at large. We are in agreement with the learned Senior
Advocate Mr. Andhyarujina that since the name of Respondent
No.1 has become his brand name, he has the economic right
to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion. We do
not find force in the submission of Mr. Saraogi, learned counsel
for the Appellant that the said film has nothing to do with the
name of the Respondent No.1. Using the name "Karan" and
"Johar" in the title of the film together along with "directors"
clearly indicate the intention of the Appellant to use the brand
name of Respondent No.1 to attract the audience and violate
Respondent No.1's goodwill and reputation, right to privacy
and personality right. The name "Karan Johar" is solely
associated with the Respondent No.1 and forms a germane
part of his personality and brand name. Further, it is an
admitted position that the two characters "Karan" and "Johar"
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
play the role of Bollywood film directors in the said film. Thus,
the juxtaposition of the name of the characters in the film and
their profession in the film, makes a direct reference to only
Respondent No.1 and nobody else. The submission of the
learned Senior Advocate that the general public would
associate the film with the Respondent No.1 on the basis of
the title of the said film has merit.
14. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the
Appellant on the cinematographic film titled "Karan Arjun",
and other such films which uses the names of the protagonists
in the title of the film in support of his submissions is
completely misplaced. The name of the Respondent is "Karan
Johar" and the claim that he widely recognised by this name
merits consideration, for this is a distinguishing feature from
the film titled "Karan Arjun". The contention of learned
counsel for the Appellant that there is a wide difference in the
title of the said film and the name of the Respondent No.1 and
that the title of the said film does not identify the name of the
Respondent No.1 can only be stated to be rejected.
15. The Courts of India have time and again recognised
personality right and publicity right of public figures including
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
celebrities. Much emphasis has been placed by learned
counsel for the Appellant that there is no such concept of
"celebrity rights" in individual in support of his submission
that the learned Single Judge has given undue importance to
the concept of "celebrity rights". However, in paragraph 76 of
the impugned order, the learned Single Judge observed that in
the present case, Respondent No.1 is not claiming "celebrity
rights" but is infact enforcing "personality and publicity
rights". It is the Respondent No.1's case that "celebrity rights"
itself are not independent and separate from publicity and
personality rights. In our opinion mere use of the expression
"celebrity rights" by the Respondent No.1 will not be a factor
to deprive the Respondent No.1 of an injunction if otherwise
the Respondent No.1 makes out a case for enforcing his
"personality and publicity rights".
16. From the pleadings and the materials on record,
prima facie, we are satisfied that Respondent No.1 is a highly
credited and leading Indian Director, Producer, Writer
Filmmaker and Television Personality primarily working in the
media and entertainment industry and is the recipient of
several awards and accolades. The Respondent No.1 has
established an esteem and reputation for directing and
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
producing cinematic films of romantic genere and larger than
life wedding scenes. The Respondent No.1 is also known for
directing and producing family oriented films and films based
on the concept of marriage suitable for all audiences of all
ages. We find force in the submission of learned Senior
Advocate for Respondent No.1 that he has garnered immense
goodwill and reputation in the media and entertainment
industry and that Respondent No.1's name has become a
brand name and has obtained a brand value and that "Karan"
"Johar" when used together as done by the Appellant in
relation to the said film clearly identifies the Respondent No.1.
17. The decisions referred to by learned counsel
demonstrate that time and again the Courts in India have
recognised personality rights and publicity rights as judicially
enforceable rights. If it is the Respondent No.1's case that his
name has become his brand name and he has economic right
to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion, we do
not see any legal provision which comes in the way of his
discretion in commercially exploiting his brand name.
18. The Respondent No.1 claims to be a celebrity and
therefore, if the materials on record justify this claim, he is
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
entitled to the protection of his personality and publicity rights
and can claim protection against unauthorised commercial
exploitation by third parties.
19. It is an admitted position that the two protagonists
of the said film named "Karan" and "Johar" are characters that
are attempting to become directors. The conjoint use of
"Director" which is the profession of the Respondent No.1 and
"Karan Aur Johar" / "Karan-Johar" which is the name of the
Respondent No.1 along with the plot of the film is clearly
indicative that there is a direct reference to the Respondent
No.1. It is the Appellant's case that the Respondent No.1's
personality and publicity rights have not been infringed in the
present case since two separate characters are named as
"Karan" and "Johar". The materials on record demonstrate that
the trailer of the film shows the name of the film as "Shaadi Ke
Director Karan-Johar"; website of the Applicant indicates that
its latest movie is titled "Shaadi Ke Directors Karan Aur Johar";
posters displayed by the Appellant indicate that the name of
the film is "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar"; script of the
film submitted by the Appellant along with its Interim
Application repeatedly indicates the use of the name "Karan
Johar" conjointly; script directly identifies the Respondent
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
No.1's company Dharma Productions Private Limited; the
audio-video clip of the interviewer asking the Appellant why
he has chosen to name the film as "Shaadi Ke Directors Karan
Aur Johar", when the same is a direct reference to a prominent
figure in the Bollywood industry; in the initial scene of the film
submitted by the Appellant, the shop is reflected as "Shaadi
Ke Director Karan_Johar Ji", which supports the case of the
Respondent No.1.
20. Learned counsel for the Appellant submitted that
the Appellant is willing to add the word "Aur" between the
names "Karan" and "Johar". In our opinion the use of the
words "director" - "Karan" - "Johar" in any combination is
sufficient to create a confusion in the minds of the public at
large as the same would be directly associated with the name
of the Respondent No.1. The Appellant cannot be allowed to
exploit the reputation and goodwill of the Respondent No.1 in
this manner. Learned Senior Advocate submitted that a simple
google search of "Karan Aur Johar" provides the output of
Wikipedia page of Respondent No.1 and news articles related
to the Respondent No.1. This material in the form of google
search is a part of the compilation of the documents.
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
21. Let us briefly analyse the decisions referred by
learned counsel for the Appellant. The case of Mr. Shivaji Rao
Gaikwad (supra) expressly acknowledges that the name of a
celebrity is an attribute of his personality and therefore a
celebrity has personality rights in his name which the celebrity
is entitled to protect. Further, it was held that if a person uses
the name of a celebrity without his/her permission, the
celebrity is entitled for injunction, if the said celebrity could be
easily identified by the use of his name by others.
22. In Arijit Singh (supra), the defendants were running
websites using the name of the plaintiff therein. The Court
acknowledged that the name is also a personality right of a
person. In Anil Kapoor (supra) the defendants were injuncted
from running the websites using the name of the personality.
In Titan Industries Ltd. (supra) the publicity right of the
celebrity was recognised and it was observed that the right to
control use of human identity is the right to publicity. It is only
the personality (celebrity), who has the right to use his name
which is his property and only he can commercially control
and exploit this right.
23. The submission of learned counsel for the Appellant
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
that as there is a certification of CBFC and hence it is
immaterial in determining whether the rights of the
Respondent No.1 had been violated, in our opinion, is
completely misplaced. The CBFC considers various factors
under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 prior to
certifying a film for public exhibition. There are guidelines
notified by the Central Government dated 7 th January 1978
governing the CBFC with respect to certification of films. We
are in agreement with the submissions of learned Senior
Advocate for the Respondent No.1 that the CBFC does not
examine or evaluate whether the film violates the personal
rights, inter alia, trade marks, personality rights, privacy rights
or brand name. The remedy of the Respondent No.1 to take
action against the violation of his personality or publicity
rights is not barred merely because there is a certification of
the film by CBFC.
24. Sanjay Leela Bhansali and others vs. State of
Rajasthan and others17 is distinguishable on facts as the
case concerned criminal allegations and/or allegations of
defamation. The film was in respect of whether public decency
and morality was being affected by exhibition of the film.
17 2018 SCC OnLine Raj 283
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
25. The Delhi High Court in Hamdard National
Foundation and another vs. Hussain Dalal and others 18
restrained the defendant from using the brand name of the
plaintiff "Roohafza" in the film "Yeh Jawaani Hai Deewani". The
aforesaid relief was granted and the content of the film was
modified without any challenge to the CBFC certification, even
after the CBFC certificate was obtained. The contention of
learned counsel for the Appellant that because there is a
certification by the CBFC there is no question of entitling the
Respondent No.1 to an order of injunction, does not appeal to
us.
26. So far as the contention of learned counsel for the
Appellant that the disclaimer at the beginning of the film and
on the poster of the film which reads as "This film has nothing
to do with Producer/Director Shri Karan Johar Ji" is sufficient to
safeguard the interest of the Respondent No.1, in our opinion,
such a disclaimer is not an adequate remedy for protecting
the personality and publicity rights of the Respondent No.1.
Thus, so far as the disclaimer is concerned, as held by the
Delhi High Court in Hamdard National Foundation and another
(supra), the restrictions and conditions in the form of
18 2013 SCC OnLine Del 2289
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
disclaimer can be put on a case to case basis.
27. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for
the Appellant in Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A.
Sarogi19 viz. order dated 10th June 2021 in Interim Application
No.5697 of 2021 and order dated 11 th July 2023 in Interim
Application No.10551 of 2021 is of no assistance to the
Appellant herein as the plaintiff therein was unable to make
out a prima facie case. In the facts of the case the Court
observed that only a trial can determine whether the plaintiff
therein has locus standi to claim relief on behalf of his late son
as the plaintiff therein was claiming posthumous rights.
28. Reliance placed by learned counsel for the
Appellant on the decision in Dr. Reddy Laboratories
Limited vs. Eros International Limited and another 20
does not help the Appellant's case as the film showed a
company 'DRL' whose area of business/trade was completely
different from the plaintiff's business and 'DRL' is not used in
the title of the film, whereas in the present case the
characters "Karan"and "Johar" are attempting to become
Bollywood film directors and the title of the film itself uses
"directors" along with "Karan" and "Johar". Further, the Delhi
19 2021 SCC OnLine 3818
20 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1298
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
High Court was of the opinion that there are various other
entities whose trade name consists of the acronym 'DRL' that
was submitted by the defendant therein before the Court.
29. We have carefully gone through the findings
recorded by the learned Single Judge. Having regard to the
well considered findings of the learned Single Judge and for
the reasons mentioned hereinabove we find no scope to
interfere with the impugned order in this Appeal.
30. Regarding to the scope of interference in Appeal
from an order of injunction passed by the learned Single
Judge, the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in
Wander Limited vs. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.21, Shyam Sel
and Power Limited and another vs. Shyam Steel
Industries Limited22, Ramakant Ambalal Choksi vs.
Harish Ambalal Choksi and others23 and the Full Bench of
this Court in UTO Nederland B. V. & Anr. vs. Tilaknagar
Industries Ltd. of this Court dated 28th April 2025 in Appeal
No.66 of 2012 dissuades us from interfering with the
discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge granting an
injunction in favour of Respondent No.1, as it is not possible
21 1990 (supp) SCC 727
22 (2023) 1 SCC 634
23 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3538
comapl.9786-2025(1).odt
for us to hold that the exercise of discretion is arbitrary,
capricious or perverse. The exercise of discretion is on well
settled sound legal principles.
31. The Appeal is dismissed. Interim Application (L)
No.9929 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No.10124 of 2025
are disposed of.
(M. S. KARNIK, J.) (CHIEF JUSTICE)
