IP Case Law › Other › Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy St…
Relevant Acts and provisions
Copyright Act, 1957
Section 38Section 38ASection 38B
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Provisions considered: Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957 and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Brief facts
A well-known film actor sued eighteen defendants for unauthorised commercial use of his name, sobriquets, registered trade mark, voice, image and mannerisms, spanning wall art, merchandise, distorted and profanity-laced videos, an unlicensed artificial-intelligence chatbot mimicking him, wallpapers, animated images and objectionable content. He also objected to a video compilation of his interviews captioned with a slang phrase, arguing it was derogatory, and sought an ex parte injunction against multiple categories of defendants.
Issues before the Court
- Does hosting an unlicensed artificial-intelligence chatbot that mimics a celebrity's persona infringe his personality rights?
- Does selling merchandise or posting distorted videos using a celebrity's image and registered trade mark amount to infringement?
- Where does the balance lie between a celebrity's personality rights and a content creator's free speech in parody or meme content?
Court's findings
The Court held, relying on D.M. Entertainment v. Baby Gift House, that unauthorised commercial exploitation of the plaintiff's name, image, voice and other attributes through wall art, merchandise, wallpapers and an unlicensed artificial-intelligence chatbot infringed his personality and publicity rights, and granted an ex parte interim injunction against the defendants engaged in such commercial activities.
On the video compilation, however, the Court held that the slang phrase used as its caption is contemporary usage connoting a bold and assertive persona rather than a derogatory label, and that the video, viewed in the context of meme culture, could reasonably be seen as a tribute rather than defamation.
The Court declined to grant an ex parte injunction against that defendant, holding that restraining such content without hearing the creator would risk stifling artistic expression and the livelihood of a growing community of content creators, and that the balance between personality rights and free speech required the defendant's response before any restraint was imposed.
Decision
Ex parte interim injunction granted against merchandise sellers, video distorters and the chatbot operator; injunction against the video compilation refused pending the creator's reply.
Key legal principle / ratio
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights extend to protection against commercial exploitation of name, image, voice and mannerisms, including through an unlicensed artificial-intelligence chatbot or distorted video content; however, these rights are not absolute, and content that is parodic, laudatory or falls within contemporary meme culture, and does not introduce falsehood or tarnish reputation, is protected as free speech, requiring case-specific balancing rather than automatic injunctive relief.
Cases cited
- D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790
- Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.
Keywords
AI And Deepfakes Freedom Of Speech Parody Personality Rights Publicity Rights
Read the judgment
More Other judgments
Other
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.
A celebrity's publicity rights in his name, image and persona may be enforced through an omnibus injunction that binds not only named defendants but extends to blocking directions against telecom and internet intermediaries, where…
Domain NamesDynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPersonality RightsOtherAnil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights, reinforced by the constitutional right to privacy, protect against unauthorised commercial exploitation of name, image, voice and likeness, including through emerging technologies su…
AI And DeepfakesDomain NamesDynamic InjunctionPersonality RightsOtherArijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors.
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights protect his name, voice, vocal style and other identifying attributes against unauthorised commercial exploitation, including through artificial-intelligence voice-cloning tools that …
AI And DeepfakesDynamic InjunctionMoral RightsPersonality Rights