Bombay High Court: The appellant filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 challenging the order dated 7-3-2025 passed by the Single Judge of this Court, whereby interim injunction was granted to Respondent 1 and the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 were restrained from using the name of Respondent 1, Karan Johar, together, or in parts and from using the attributes of the personality of Respondent 1 in the title of the cinematographic film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar”/“Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar”, in the trailers and in any other promotional materials including social media platforms, the appellant’s website, hoardings/advertisements in public places.
The Division Bench of Alok Aradhe, C.J., and M.S. Karnik*, J., opined that using the name “Karan” and “Johar” in the film’s title together along with “directors” indicated the appellant’s intention to use the brand name of Respondent 1 to attract the audience and violate Respondent 1’s goodwill and reputation, right to privacy, and personality right as the name “Karan Johar” was solely associated with Respondent 1. The Court held that there was no scope to interfere with the impugned order granting an injunction in favour of Respondent 1.
Background
The film was co-produced by Appellant 1, Sanjay and Respondent 2, India Pride Advisory (P) Ltd and was written and directed by Respondent 3, Bablu Singh. Respondent 1 was a highly credited and leading Indian Director, Producer, Writer Filmmaker, and Television Personality primarily working in the media and entertainment Industry and was entitled to enforce his “personality” and “publicity” rights. On 5-6-2024, Respondent 1 came across the trailer of the film to be released in theatres on 14-6-2024 and thus, issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 6-6-2024 to the appellant and Respondents 2 and 3 calling upon them to immediately cease and desist from using his name in the film in any manner whatsoever, and to immediately cease and desist from releasing the film until the appellant changes or removes the title of the film.
An application was moved by Respondent 1 for ad-interim reliefs as the appellant failed to give any reply and by an order dated 13-6-2024, the Single Judge granted ad-interim reliefs in Respondent 1’s favour and held that the appellant unauthorizedly used Respondent 1’s name and personality attributes in the title of the film which prima facie violated Respondent 1’s personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy. The Single Judge passed an order of injunction restraining release of the film on any mode/medium whatsoever including in theatres or running any promotional materials in relation to the film on any mode or social media platform, including the trailers, until the name “Karan Johar”, together or in parts, or his attributes from title of the film, were removed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court relied on K.S. Puttaswamy (Privacy-9J.) v. Union of India, (2017) 10 SCC 1, wherein it was observed that an individual might be permitted to prevent others from using his image, name, and other aspects of his/her personal life and identity for commercial purposes without his/her consent.
The Court opined that it appeared that Respondent 1 garnered immense goodwill and reputation in the media and entertainment industry in India and globally and the names “Karan” and “Johar” when used together by the appellant in relation to the film clearly identified Respondent 1. The Court agreed with the contention that since Respondent 1’s name had become his brand name; he had the economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion.
The Court did not accept the contention that the film had nothing to do with Respondent 1’s name and opined that using the name “Karan” and “Johar” in the title of the film together along with “directors” clearly indicated the appellant’s intention to use the brand name of Respondent 1 to attract the audience and violate Respondent 1’s goodwill and reputation, right to privacy, and personality right as the name “Karan Johar” was solely associated with Respondent 1 and formed a germane part of his personality and brand name.
The Court observed that the two characters “Karan” and “Johar” play the role of Bollywood film directors in the film and thus, the juxtaposition of the name of the characters in the film and their profession in the film, made a direct reference to only Respondent 1 and nobody else. Therefore, the Court accepted the contention that the general public would associate the film with Respondent 1 based on the title of the film had merit.
The Court stated that the contention that as there was a certification of Central Board of Film Certification (‘CBFC’) and hence it was immaterial in determining whether the rights of the Respondent 1 had been violated, was completely misplaced. The Court opined that CBFC considered various factors under the provisions of the Cinematograph Act, 1952 prior to certifying a film for public exhibition. Further, there were guidelines notified by the Central Government dated 7-1-1978 governing CBFC with respect to certification of films. The Court agreed with the contentions that CBFC did not examine or evaluate whether the film violates personal rights, trade marks, personality rights, privacy rights, or brand name. The Court stated that Respondent 1’s remedy to take action against the violation of his personality or publicity rights was not barred merely because there was a certification of the film by CBFC.
The Court thus dismissed the appeal and held that there was no scope for this Court to interfere with the impugned order of the Single Judge granting an injunction in favour of Respondent 1, as it was not possible to hold that the exercise of discretion was arbitrary, capricious, or perverse.
[Sanjay v. Karan Johar, Commercial Appeal (L) No. 9786 of 2025, decided on 7-5-2025]
*Judgment authored by: Justice M.S. Karnik
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant: Ashok M. Saraogi a/w Anand Mishra, Sushil Upadhyay, Amit Dubey, Siddharth Singh, Priti Rao, Kavya Smriti, for the Appellant.
For the Respondents: Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate a/w Rashmin Khandekar, Parag Khandhar, Pranita Saboo, Anaheeta Verma, Pratyusha Dhoda i/b. DSK Legal, for Respondent 1.