Bombay High Court Upholds Karan Johar’s Personality Rights

Introduction

The Bombay High Court recently reinforced personality and publicity rights in India by granting relief to filmmaker Karan Johar against the producers of a film titled “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”. The Court held that the unauthorized use of Johar’s name and persona constituted a clear violation of his rights. This order sets another precedent in India’s evolving jurisprudence on the commercial protection of celebrity identity under intellectual property law.

This blog breaks down the legal issues, arguments, and judicial reasoning Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd [1]¹, while exploring how this order strengthens the framework for personality and publicity rights in India.

Facts of the Case

Karan Johar moved against India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. to get an injunction against the release and promotion of the film titled “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”. The film’s title, trailers, posters, and promotional content prominently used the combined words “Karan,” “Johar,” and “Director,” in a storyline about Bollywood aspirants. Johar argued that this amounted to an unauthorized commercial use of his identity, reputation, and persona, particularly associating his name with “adult-themed, B-grade content that contradicted his established public image.”

Internationally recognized filmmaker Karan Johar associates with large-scale romantic and family-genre projects. In essence, Karan Johar is a brand in his own right, and hence any usages of his name in the market and public domain are strictly guarded against publicity. The plaintiff argued that the movie concerned had used his name and professional attributes in such a way as to lead the public into believing that it was really endorsing that movie and Karan Johar was endorsing the movie.

Johar relied on several precedents to argue that the usage of his name and persona was a blatant infringement of his personality and publicity rights:

D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House [2]²: A celebrity has a right to protect commercial use of their identity.
Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewelers [3]³: A celebrity has the legitimate right to decide when, where, and what way their name or likeness may be used
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [4]:⁴ Right to privacy is part of the personal liberty guaranteed in Article 21.

On the other hand, the producers of the film (the Defendant) argued that the characters in the movie, “Karan” and “Johar” are not the same person; that the name was neither meant to attack nor came into play commonly to identify Johar. They further indicated that the film was certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) under the Cinematograph Act, 1952, and therefore, it was too late to stop the release considering financial obligations and marketing expenses already incurred. They cited Krishna Kishore Singh vs. Sarla A Sarogi [5]⁵, which held that the rights of celebrities do not form a right separate from personality or publicity rights, and that only fictional representation would not lead to any breach

Observations of the Court

The court looked at the screenplay along with its trailers, online presence, and promotional materials. The court concluded that:

The title “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar” clearly calls up Johar’s name and identity.
The transcripts and trailers showed repeated reference to “Karan Johar” and “Dharma,” Johar’s production house. This, according to the Court, could not have been a coincidence and was a clear misappropriation of his identity.
An A rated film inconsistent with Johar’s family-comfortable live and the possible dilapidations to be caused to him.

The Court noted that cosmetic changes of “Karan Johar” being substituted by “Karan Aur Johar” or a disclaimer would not be able to avoid public confusion or legal liability. A Google search for “Karan Aur Johar” would still lead to Karan Johar’s Wikipedia and associate pages which would further reinforce the possibility of mis-association.

The Court also rejected the defense that the CBFC certificate insulated the producers from personality rights claims, stating that certification does not evaluate or authorize use of personal identity or brand name.

Accordingly, the Court held that personality rights are another branch of intellectual property and must be given the same weight of protection as trademarks. This was also reflected in previous judgements such as Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India [6]⁶ and Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP [7]⁷ where courts appreciated the commercial value of a celebrity’s name, voice, likeness, and persona.

Judgment and Relief

In favour of Karan Johar, the Court granted a permanent injunction against the production house from:

Using the title “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar,” or any name bearing a similarity thereto.
Referring to Johar or his production house, either directly or indirectly, in the screenplay or any marketing materials.
Releasing the film in a current state until these references were completely wiped from any part.

The Court reiterated that personality rights are enforceable in India, particularly when the person is readily identifiable and the use is unauthorized and for commercial gain.

Our Analysis and Conclusion

This is yet another judgement for judicial recognition of personality and publicity rights in India. The judgment comes from the Bombay High Court accentuating the changing contour of identity, which emerges as an acknowledged proprietary right, enjoying the redress of law also outside the specific registrations of intellectual property.

In weighing the arguments, the court took into account Article 21 of the Constitution, which recognizes the right to privacy, meaning, inter alia, the right to determining his or her identity and personal information. It also consulted certain principles of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (in particular Section 29), and the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects commercial exploitation of unauthorized names and likenesses.

Thus, this decision puts to notice all content creators: Imagination is not without responsibility. Even the dons of fictive framing or disclaimers can be legal infringement when a real person’s name or persona is used without permission.

It also makes it explicit that the CBFC certificate does not exempt a producer from liability under personality or publicity rights. A disclaimer inserted within the film is not a loophole when the content does not indicate clearly against a well-known public figure.

In the end, this victory for Karan Johar ensured that a celebrity’s name, image, and reputation are not merely markers of public identity; they are precious intellectual assets deserving of vigorous protection.