New Delhi: From Bachchan, Big B and AB to his “unique style of addressing the computer as Computer ji and saying Lock kiya jaaye” — Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan has demanded protection of his personality rights, his image, name and voice from the Delhi High Court.
Alleging violation of his “publicity rights as a celebrity”, Bachchan has complained of the unauthorised use of his celebrity status to promote goods and services without his permission.
He has, therefore, demanded a permanent bar restraining the usage of his “publicity/personality rights” by using any of his “unique and identifiable attributes”, like his name, voice or image for any personal or commercial gain, without his consent. He has also demanded Rs 2 crore as damages from the defendants, “on account of loss of reputation and goodwill” of his personality rights.
The suit, a copy of which ThePrint has accessed, has been filed against nine known defendants, along with unknown infringers, or “John Does” and “Ashok Kumars”. He has demanded protection of different aspects of his personality, which include his “deep, rich, powerful, baritone voice”, his name, and his image/photograph/likeness. This includes variations of his name, like Bachchan, AB and Big B.
His suit has also claimed rights to his style of dialogue delivery, including his “unique style of addressing the computer as’ Computer ji‘ and saying lock kiya jaye”.
In an order passed on 25 November, Justice Navin Chawla found that the defendants “appear to be using the plaintiff’s celebrity status for promoting their own activities, without his authorization or permission”. It opined that Bachchan is, therefore, “likely to suffer grave irreparable harm and injury to his reputation”, and that “some of the activities complained of may also bring disrepute to him”.
Justice Chawla, therefore, issued an “ad-interim ex-parte order” of injunction — an interim order of injunction passed without hearing the defendants. This means that nobody can now use any of Bachchan’s personality traits for commercial purposes without his consent.
Also read: Why Baba Ramdev’s win against Facebook, Google in Delhi HC only adds to judicial confusion
What are personality rights
While personality rights do not have a specific definition under the law, courts have defined it as a right emerging from the right to privacy and have held that “personality right vests on those persons, who have attained the status of celebrity”.
They have explained that this protection extends to different aspects of an individual’s personality, including his name, personality traits, signature and voice. For instance, in February 2015, the Madras High Court had protected actor Rajinikanth’s personality rights, by staying the release of the movie, Main Hoon Rajinikanth.
Bachchan was represented by senior advocate Harish Salve along with Ameet Naik and Pravin Anand. Commenting on the order, counsel Anand, Partner at the law firm Anand and Naik, told ThePrint that the order is a “strong recognition of aspects of a person’s persona”, which could be their name, image, voice and signatures.
Anand asserted that any attribute of a person that is easily recognisable by members of the public can be protected. “The basis of the law is two-fold, namely, to protect the personality in a world where fake news is proliferating like wildfire and secondly, to protect the members of the public from being deceived in a world where celebrities often inspire and influence decision making,” he explained.
“Thus, for instance, when Amitabh Bachchan says buy a lottery ticket, people follow that and may well end up deceived and duped,” Anand said.
Zanjeer to Amar Akbar Anthony
Bachchan’s suit spoke about his movies, from Zanjeer to Amar Akbar Anthony, through which he has “established a deep connect with the Indian audience across the board and emerged as the most sought-after actor in the India film industry”. It asserted that he was “an exemplary citizen” and also spoke of his achievements and awards.
He has, therefore, demanded a “right to personality/publicity” as a part of his right to privacy under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. Along with this, he has relied on his rights under the Copyright Act 1957, which grants the right to authors and performers to claim credit and authorship of their work under Sections 38 (performer’s right), 38A (exclusive right of performers) and 38B (moral rights of performers).
The suit has been filed against unknown infringers along with nine others. The defendants include one Delhi-based Rajat Negi, who has developed a mobile application called ‘Amitabh Bachchan Video Call’.
As per the suit, the app allows people to use Bachchan’s “likeness to make video calls/prank calls and voice calls”. Another defendant is Kolkata-based Rana Pratab Singh, who has been accused of circulating WhatsApp messages on “KBC lotteries”. The list also includes a Tripura-based company M/s Swag Shirts, which sells T-shirts with Bachchan’s face online, and a Gwalior-based company which deals with wall posters with Bachchan’s photographs.
‘Ashok Kumar’ connection
In such intellectual property right suits, it becomes virtually impossible to track all those infringing to the rights. So parties often try to obtain blanket injunctions or ban orders, known as ‘John Doe orders’, that originated in the UK, and ‘Ashok Kumar orders’, in India.
Kruttika Vijay, Attorney at Ira Law, a law firm specialising in intellectual property litigation, said that John Doe orders in publicity rights cases are “rather unusual since these lawsuits are usually instituted when there are identified persons who are infringing or misappropriating a celebrity’s likeness or name for specified, unauthorised acts”.
“Having said that, the order itself is not surprising given the reputation, goodwill and credibility of Mr Bachchan and the seemingly indefensible acts of misappropriation by third parties solely with the aim to cheat the public and to earn unjust profits,” she added.
‘Fillip to celebrities’
Naik also explained the impact of such an order against unknown offenders in this case. He told ThePrint, “If a fake Amitabh Bachchan T-shirt is selling outside the stadium, it is impractical to determine the identity of the manufacturer and seller before the wrong can be stopped. The goods would disappear within minutes. The John Doe order enables the stoppage prior to making the wrong doer a party in court proceedings.”
He asserted that anonymity has weakened enforcement on the internet and one way to manage this is to be able to stop the wrong without first identifying the wrongdoer.
Vijay added that this order would provide a fillip to other celebrities to file similar cases. She said, “There are only a handful of well publicised cases where the celebrities have approached the courts themselves to protect their publicity rights.”
“Given the strength and the wide-ranging nature of the order passed by the High Court of Delhi, hopefully this order will also provide a fillip to celebrities who are usually reluctant to file any litigation, despite rampant use of their names and likeness,” she added.
(Edited by V.S. Chandrasekar)