Actor Jackie Shroff Files Suit Before Delhi High Court Seeking Protection Of His Personality And Publicity Rights

Bollywood actor Jackie Shroff has filed a suit before the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights.

The suit has been filed against various entities using his name, photographs, voice and word “Bhidu” without his consent.

Justice Sanjeev Narula heard the matter today and issued summons to the defendant entities in the suit.

The matter has been listed tomorrow when the court will consider passing an interim order.

In the suit, the actor has contended that his name, images, name and voice are being misused by the defendant entities for commercial purposes.

Advocate Pravin Anand appeared for Shroff and submitted that the personality and publicity rights of the actor are being violated by the misuse of his name, image, voice and his personality features.

He relied on various judgments passed by the coordinate bench wherein personality rights of other actors like Anil Kapoor and Amitabh Bachchan have been protected.

Anand told court that one of the defendants in the suit was running a restaurant with the name “Bhidu”, which is the registered trademark of Shroff.

Some of the defendants, who appeared in court on advance notice, submitted that they have already discontinued using Shroff's images and voice in wallpapers and ringtones.

For other defendant entities who did not appear in court despite advance notice, Anand submitted that they had no defence and therefore, they must be injuncted.

“Personality rights have developed to the point and this cannot be done without consent. They are misusing it to the point of pornography which is why the law is developing on these lines,” he said.

He further informed court that some of the defendants were using Shroff's images on T-shirts, posters, mugs and posters without his consent or license which cannot be permitted.

“Anil Kapoor case deals exactly with this. This is precisely why your lordships insisted on advance notice in counterfeiting cases. Today, I put this in the category of counterfeiting. I've given them advance notice that is why six of them came forward and said they are taking it down. Today there is no defence (regarding the defendants who did not appear) because nobody has any permission or license. Look at the passing off. This is straightforward misuse,” Anand submitted.

He also referred to various memes and videos using Shroff's images and voice and submitted that it was all “defamatory” and bad words were used in the content.

Last year, while protecting the personality rights of actor Anil Kapoor, a coordinate bench had observed that the fame for a person can come with its own disadvantages and that the case shows that reputation and fame can transcend into damage to a person.

The court had said that while there is no doubt that free speech about a person in the form of satire and writings is protected, as also criticism which can be genuine, however, when the same crosses the line and results in tarnishement or jeopardising the individual's personality and elements associated with the individual, the same would be illegal.

Title: JAIKISHAN KAKUBHAI SARAF ALIAS JACKIE SHROFF v. THE PEPPY STORE & ORS.