[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Madras High Court
Miss.Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia vs M/S.Power Soaps Limited on 16 April, 2026
Author: P.Velmurugan
Bench: P.Velmurugan
O.S.A.No.190 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on 23.03.2026
Pronounced on 16.04.2026
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.VELMURUGAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI
O.S.A.No.190 of 2018
and C.M.P.No.9918 of 2018
Tamanna Santhosh Bhatia ...Appellant
Vs.
1.M/s.Power Soaps Limited,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
RS.No.94/1, Sembiapalayam Village,
Embalam Main Road,
Korukadu Post,
Puducherry- 605 110.
2.M/s.J. & D Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
59, G.N.Shetty Road,
T.Nagar,
Chennai- 600 017.
...Respondents
Prayer: Appeal filed under Order XXXVI Rule 1 O.S. Rules read with Clause
15 of the Letters Patent, against the judgment and decree dated 07.04.2017
1/18
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
O.S.A.No.190 of 2018
passed in C.S.No.284 of 2011 on the file of Original Side of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.V.Manohar
For Respondents : Mr.P.V.Balasubramaniam, Senior Advocate
for Mr.M.R.Gokul Krishnan for R1
JUDGMENT
K. GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
The Original Side Appeal is filed challenging the order 07.04.2017
passed by the learned Single Judge in C.S.No.284 of 2011.
2.The above suit has been filed by the plaintiff seeking a judgment and
decree directing the defendants to pay a sum of Rs.1,00,00,000/- (Rupees One
Crore only) towards damages for unauthorized use and exploitation of the
plaintiff’s image, reputation and personality rights, and for a consequential
relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from in any manner
using the plaintiff’s photographs, videos or likeness for commercial purposes.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
3.For the sake of convenience, the parties herein are referred to as arrayed
in suit.
4.The sum and substance of the case of the appellant/Plaintiff is that, the
appellant/plaintiff is a well-known and reputed multi-lingual film actress
enjoying wide popularity and goodwill among the public. She has established a
significant reputation in the advertisement field, and her presence carries
substantial commercial value. The defendants approached the appellant/plaintiff
with a proposal to promote the products of the first defendant by engaging her
as their brand ambassador. Taking into account her popularity and market value,
the defendants offered an honorarium, and pursuant to negotiations, an
agreement dated 07.10.2008 was entered into between the appellant/plaintiff
and the first defendant, in the presence of the second defendant. The said
agreement was valid for a period of one year, i.e., up to 06.10.2009. In terms of
the agreement, the appellant/plaintiff promoted the products of the first
defendant, and it is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that owing to her
appearance in the advertisements, the sales and market reach of the first
defendant’s products increased manifold. Despite such benefit, when the
defendants sought extension of the agreement, the plaintiff declined to continue.
It is the categorical case of the appellant/plaintiff that upon expiry of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
agreement, the first defendant had no manner of right, authority, or consent to
use her image or likeness. However, during the last quarter of 2010, when the
appellant/plaintiff was engaged in negotiations with M/s. Wipro Limited
(Consumer Care and Lighting Division) for endorsement of their products, she
was shocked to learn that the first defendant, being a competitor, continued to
use her photographs and videos for promotion of their products without
authorization.
4.1.Immediately upon such knowledge, the appellant/plaintiff issued oral
warnings to the defendants and also took up the matter through the second
defendant, their agent. Despite such warnings, the first defendant clandestinely
continued to exploit the appellant/plaintiff’s image through various media,
including television commercials, print publications, and product packaging,
particularly in respect of soaps manufactured during November 2010 to
February 2011. Such unauthorized use has seriously prejudiced the
appellant/plaintiff’s commercial interests and affected her professional
engagements with other entities. As the defendants failed to desist from such
acts, the appellant/plaintiff issued legal notices dated 18.01.2011 and
01.02.2011. The reply dated 09.02.2011 sent by the first defendant was evasive
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and contained untenable denials. The continued unauthorized exploitation of the
appellant/plaintiff’s image amounts to infringement of her rights, violation of
contractual obligations, and unlawful commercial enrichment at the expense of
the appellant/plaintiff. Despite repeated demands, the defendants failed to take
corrective measures, hence the aggrieved appellant/plaintiff filed the Civil Suit
in C.S.No.284 of 2011 for damages.
5.The claim of the appellant/plaintiff was resisted by the first defendant
stating that the first defendant submits that the suit is not maintainable either in
law or on facts. All allegations contained in the plaint are denied by the first
defendant contending that the appellant/plaintiff should be put to strict proof of
the same. The first defendant contended that the appellant/plaintiff is not a
highly reputed or influential personality as alleged. It is submitted that the
appellant/plaintiff was engaged under an agreement dated 07.10.2008 for a
consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- per annum. The said agreement was not executed
in the presence of the second defendant, as falsely alleged, but was negotiated
through an intermediary, namely N.D. Communication Private Limited, and not
J & D Communication Private Limited. The suit is therefore bad for misjoinder
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
and non-joinder of necessary parties. It is further submitted that the
appellant/plaintiff had expressly permitted the first defendant to use her
photographs in connection with trademark registration and promotional
activities, both in India and abroad, during the subsistence of the agreement.
The products of the first defendant have an established reputation in the market
owing to their quality, and their growth trajectory has been consistent,
independent of any celebrity endorsement.
5.1.The first defendant further submits that they are not aware of any
negotiations between the appellant/plaintiff and M/s. Wipro Limited and denies
that the said entity is a competitor of the first defendant. The allegation that the
first defendant continued to use the appellant/plaintiff’s photographs after
expiry of the agreement is denied. It is submitted that necessary instructions
were issued to all advertising agencies and associates not to use the
appellant/plaintiff’s images beyond the contractual period. If at all any
unauthorized use has occurred, the same may have been by third-party service
providers without the knowledge or authorization of the first defendant, for
which the first defendant cannot be held liable. The first defendant, being fully
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
aware of intellectual property rights, has not committed any breach of the
agreement. The present suit has been filed by the appellant/plaintiff with an
intention to unjustly enrich herself by claiming exorbitant and baseless
damages.
5.2.There is no cause of action for the suit. The appellant/plaintiff has not
suffered any loss, monetary or otherwise, on account of any alleged act of the
defendant. The claim for damages is speculative, excessive, and devoid of
merit. Hence, the first defendant prayed for dismissal of the suit with costs.
6.Based on the above pleadings, the following issues were framed by the
learned Singe Judge:
“ 1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
damages of Rs.1 Crore for exploitation of her popularity for the
business of the first defendant in breach of the agreement dated
07.10.2008?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of
injunction restraining the defendants form publicizing,
advertising or using the advertisement materials with her
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
presence in their products, wrappers and sales promotions etc.,
including advertisements in medias?”
7.The learned Single Judge upon considering the materials on record
dismissed the suit in C.S.No.284 of 2011 against which the present original side
appeal is preferred.
8.The learned counsel for the appellant/plaintiff would submit that, the
appellant/plaintiff is a popular actress and in view of her popularity and
potential, the 1st respondent/defendant had approached her through the 2 nd
respondent/defendant, their advertising agency to endorse, promote and support
their products as the brand Ambassador. In view of the same, an agreement
dated 07.10.2008 was entered between the appellant/plaintiff and the 1 st
respondent/defendant in the presence of the 2nd respondent/defendant herein,
with clear terms that the said agreement will have effect only till 6 th October
2009.
9.The learned counsel further submits that the appellant/plaintiff was
called upon to act in the advertisement videos and photo shots to promote the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
products of the 1st respondent/defendant in the commercial world. Seeing the
increase in the volume of business of the 1st respondent/defendant, they
expressed their intention to continue the agreement for further periods, which
was refused by the appellant/plaintiff and the agreement got expired on
06.10.2009.
10.However, even after the expiry of one year from the stipulated period
in the agreement, the respondent/defendant had been advertising their products
using her pictures/name by telecasting in multiple channels, materials published
in journals and the wrappers used in their products even after the period of
expiry of the agreement and in particular during November 2010 to February
2011 and also carried out with the presence of the appellant’s profile. Hence,
the appellant/plaintiff was constrained to issue a notice to the 1 st
respondent/defendant on 18.01.2011 setting out the violations and misdeeds
committed by them with an indication of compensation claim. Despite the
notice, again on 1st February 2011 said notice, the respondents/defendants
continued to commit breach of contact and therefore again on 2011, another
notice was sent in this regard, for which the 1 st respondent/defendant gave an
evasive reply on 19.02.2011, contending that they are not responsible for the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
said exploitation of the appellant/plaintiff’s appearance in their products. Hence,
the above suit was filed by the appellant/plaintiff for damages and permanent
injunction. However, the learned Single Judge without taking into consideration
of the relevant materials on record erroneously dismissed the suit, warrants
interference by this Court.
11.On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents/defendants
would contend that, the 1st defendant had given instructions to the advertisement
Associates and Agents not to use the pictures of the appellant/plaintiff after
expiration of the agreement. The 1st defendant's product being a popular
product, there were many service providers to earn their visibility could have
committed certain acts for which the 1st defendant cannot be mulcted with. The
product of the 1st defendant being the market leader in the soap segment there
are many infringers and criminals, who slavishly imitate, wrappers and circulate
the fake and counterfeit products. The 1st defendant never had any working
arrangements with one India Mart. It reiterated that on expiry of the agreement
all the advertisements having picture of the appellant/plaintiff were withdrawn
and suitable directions were given to the advertisement Agency. Therefore,
there is no violation of the agreement. The intention of the appellant/plaintiff is
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
only to extract money from the 1st defendant despite they have not committed
any act which warrants penalizing them and on the other side the
appellant/plaintiff had not suffered any loss or damages. The learned Single
Judge upon appreciating the materials on record, found that no safe credence
could be attached to the documents relied upon by the appellant/plaintiff, rightly
dismissed the suit, warrants any interference by this Court.
12.Heard on both sides and records perused.
13.It is the specific case of the appellant/plaintiff that the continued
unauthorized exploitation of the appellant/plaintiff's image by the 1 st defendant
amounts to infringement of her rights, violation of contractual obligations, and
unlawful commercial enrichment at the expense of the appellant/plaintiff, the 1 st
defendant is liable to pay damages.
14.On the other hand, the contention of the 1 st defendant is that it had
given instructions to their Advertisement Associates and Agents not to use the
pictures of the appellant/plaintiff after the expiration of the agreement. The 1 st
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
defendant had not advertised or published the picture or photo of the
appellant/plaintiff. Further, the product of the 1st defendant being the market
leader in the soap segment, there are many infringers to circulate the fake and
counterfeit products, for which the 1st defendant is not responsible.
15.To claim damages, the appellant/plaintiff must prove the existence of
an agreement, violation of that agreement, resulting quantifiable losses. Using
an actress photographs on cosmetic products after the expiry of an endorsement
agreement constitute a clear violation of her personality rights, right to publicity
and right to privacy. Such acts amounts to unauthorized commercial
exploitation enabling the actress to file a law suit for damages and permanent
injunction. However, the burden lies on the plaintiff to produce the best
evidence, such as the products themselves showing the photos were used for
promoting the products and the defendants have nexus for using the
pictures/photos of the actress without her permission after the expiry of the
endorsement agreement.
16.It is not in dispute that there was an agreement entered between the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
appellant/plaintiff and the 1st defendant on 07.10.2008 for a period of one year,
through which the 1st defendant engaged the appellant/plaintiff, a well known
film actress, as their brand Ambassador. Admittedly, the said agreement expired
on 06.10.2009. It is for the appellant/plaintiff to establish that, the 1 st defendant
continued to use her photographs and videos for their products without her
permission, thereby the 1st defendant had acted in breach of the agreement.
17.During the course of evidence, the appellant/plaintiff has rested her
claim for damages mainly relying upon Exs.P.8 & P.9 and also Ex.P.7
respectively. However, nothing is whispered in the plaint with regard to the
above documents. According to the appellant/plaintiff, she had purchased the
soap products from a shop at Tambaram and found that the 1 st defendant was
using her pictures/photographs in the wrappers of the soap products, after the
time limit stipulated in Ex.P2 agreement. She would contend that only through
Ex.P.9 she had purchased the soap products of the 1st defendant's company and
found in the wrappers of the soap product, marked as Ex.P.8 series her
pictures/photographs. According to the appellant/plaintiff, Ex.P.9 is a bill for
purchasing the soap products. But Ex.P9 found to be an estimate of Isaiah
Agencies at Tambaram West, Chennai - 45 dated 12.02.2011, addressed to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Nadesan Stores. Therefore, no product can be purchased under Ex.P.9 as
contended by the appellant/plaintiff. There is no indication in Ex.P9 that the
same was issued to the appellant/plaintiff for purchasing the soap products of
the 1st defendant. Hence, the appellant/plaintiff failed to establish that the soap
product were purchased under Ex.P.9. Moreover, the father of the
appellant/plaintiff examined as P.W.1 has categorically stated in his evidence
that Ex.P.9 was given to him by his friend Thangadurai. The said Thangadurai
was not examined on the side of the appellant/plaintiff to speak about Ex.P.8
and Ex.P.9. Therefore, the appellant/plaintiff is not directly associated with
Ex.P.9. Admittedly, it is only on the basis of Ex.P.9, the wrappers of the soap
products were marked as Ex.P.8 series and when it is found that the
appellant/plaintiff failed to establish that Ex.P.9 is related to Ex.P.8 series, no
link could be attached between the above documents. Further, the
appellant/plaintiff failed to establish that the wrappers marked as Ex.P.8 series
actually contained the soap products of the 1st defendant and the wrappers along
with soap products of the 1st defendant had been purchased under Ex.P.9, the
above wrappers cannot be the foundation for holding the appellant/plaintiff’s
claim. Without proving Ex.P.9, Ex.P.8 series have no evidentiary value.
Moreover, the 1st defendant seriously denied that Ex.P.8 series have no nexus to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
the products of the 1st defendant's company, while so, the appellant/plaintiff
ought to have established that the 1st defendant had been instrumental in the
existence of the photos and pictures of the appellant/plaintiff in Ex.P.8 series of
wrappers, after the expiry of Ex.P.2 agreement. Even in the pre suit notice
issued by the appellant/plaintiff nothing is mentioned about Ex.P8 & P.9 and
also there is no specific averments in the plaint with regard to the above
documents. As rightly pointed out by the learned Single Judge, the basis for the
appellant/plaintiff's claim for damages under Exs.P8 & P.9 cannot merit
acceptance.
18.Further, it is also not established by the appellant/plaintiff that India
Mart had the authority of the 1st defendant to publish Ex.P.7, containing the
pictures/photographs of the appellant/plaintiff. Ex.P7 found to be a computer
generated copy dated 21.02.2011 from Internet, uploaded by India Mart. Merely
on the basis of Ex.P.7 alone, it cannot be held that the 1 st defendant was
responsible for the photographs/pictures of the appellant/plaintiff contained
therein.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
19.Therefore, Ex.P.7 to P.9 cannot be construed as concrete evidences to
substantiate the appellant/plaintiff's claim. On a lack of concrete evidence, the
claim of the appellant/plaintiff would fail.
20. Therefore, we are unable to accept the arguments of the learned
counsel for the appellant / plaintiff that the 1 st defendant has committed breach
of agreement and that the appellant/plaintiff is entitled for the reliefs claimed in
the suit. This Court also finds that the learned Single Judge has rightly held that
the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled for the reliefs claimed in the plaint. We do
not find any infirmity in the said findings of the learned Single Judge.
21.In fine, this original side appeal is dismissed with costs. Consequently,
connected miscellaneous petition is closed.
(P.V.J.,) (K.G.T.J.,)
16.04.2026
Index: Yes/No
Internet: Yes/No
Speaking/Non-Speaking order
vsn
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
To
1.M/s.Power Soaps Limited,
Rep., by its Managing Director,
RS.No.94/1, Sembiapalayam Village,
Embalam Main Road,
Korukadu Post,
Puducherry- 605 110.
2.M/s.J. & D Communication Pvt. Ltd.,
59, G.N.Shetty Road, T.Nagar, Chennai- 600 017.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
P.VELMURUGAN,J.
and
K.GOVINDARAJAN THILAKAVADI,J.
vsn
Pre-delivery judgment made in
16.04.2026
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
