Bombay High Court: The present application was filed by the celebrated Indian playback singer, Sonu Nigam (applicant), seeking protection of his personality rights including his name, image, photograph, likeness, and persona, against misrepresentation, misuse of all hues and unauthorised/unlicensed use on the internet by another individual, Sonu Nigam Singh (Defendant 1). A Single Judge Bench of R.I. Chagla, J., while granting an ad-interim injunction held that Sonu Nigam was entitled to the protection of his distinctive name/mark, especially when the manner of use by Defendant 1 led to complete misrepresentation. The Court clarified that Defendant 1 was free to use the whole name ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’ in respect of his social media account on ‘X’, provided it did not cause misrepresentation, confusion, or deception.
Background:
Sonu Nigam alleged that in June 2024 he was informed that Defendant 1, who was a lawyer based in Bihar, had created a profile on the social media platform ‘X’ using the display name ‘Sonu Nigam’, while the associated username remained same as ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’. The said profile had more than 92,800 followers and was followed by prominent national leaders, including the Prime Minister of India, creating a likelihood of misconception that the infringing account belonged to the singer himself. However, it was stated that Sonu Nigam had quit the platform ‘X’ (Twitter) in 2017, which allegedly made it easier for Defendant 1 to impersonate Sonu Nigam.
Sonu Nigam contended that Defendant 1 was engaged in a calculated and systematic attempt to impersonate him and unlawfully exploit his established celebrity status to gain digital capital and public attention. It was also contended that use of a trade mark in a domain name amounted to use in the sense of a trade mark. Further, use of a display name on social media was analogous, and the impugned display name on X, ‘Sonu Nigam’, was used by Defendant 1 to signify a source or misrepresent that the infringing account belonged to Sonu Nigam. He argued that such use amounted to use in the sense of a trade mark, capable of being restrained if it caused misrepresentation.
Defendant 1 on several instances had impersonated Sonu Nigam, as well as engaged with other users on ‘X’ purporting to be Sonu Nigam himself. Despite multiple requests made by Sonu Nigam to put forward a clarification regarding his identity, he made no such attempts to clarify that his identity was separate from that of Sonu Nigam’s.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that Sonu Nigam had acquired immense goodwill and reputation, including his name ‘Sonu Nigam’, which had achieved secondary significance, thereby making him entitled to the protection of his distinctive name/mark, especially since the manner of use by Defendant 1 had led to complete misrepresentation, amounting to the tort of passing off, and was therefore liable to be injuncted.
The Court noted that Defendant 1 while making controversial comments on politically spirited posts by political leaders, had caused the applicant to receive substantial backlash from members of the general public.
The Court emphasised that while every citizen had a right to freedom of speech and expression, the same was not an absolute right, as reasonable restrictions had to be placed, especially when the exercise of that right led to misrepresentation and violated the rights of others. Furthermore, the Court highlighted that even though Sonu Nigam was a celebrity, as a citizen of the country, he was entitled to safeguard the privacy of himself and his family, and to prevent the publication of any content in the media or social media that violated his right to privacy, which included the ‘right to be let alone,’ protected under Article 21 of the Constitution.
The Court noted that Defendant 1’s actions could not be considered innocent, and the misrepresentation caused among members of the general public was not a matter of coincidence. Since the present case was not an ordinary instance of misrepresentation and passing off by an unaware third party, the conduct of Defendant 1 was ex facie dishonest and reeked of mala fide intentions.
The Court noted that the unauthorised use and/or commercial exploitation of Sonu Nigam’s name by Defendant 1 on the social media platform ‘X’ had not only associated Sonu Nigam’s name and persona with ignoble acts but had also severely damaged Sonu Nigam’s reputation. The Court further observed that Sonu Nigam had made out a strong prima facie case for the grant of ad-interim injunction, and unless the reliefs were granted, he would suffer irreparable injury which could not be compensated in terms of money.
The Court while granting an ad-interim injunction, restrained Defendant 1 from using the display name ‘Sonu Nigam’ per se on ‘X’. However, the Court clarified that Defendant 1 was free to use the whole name ‘Sonu Nigam Singh’ in respect of his social media account on ‘X’, provided it did not cause misrepresentation, confusion or deception amongst the members of the general public.
The matter would next be listed on 4-8-2025 for further ad-interim reliefs.
[Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh, Interim Application (L) No. 20631 of 2025, decided on 11-7-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant/Original Plaintiff: Hiren Kamod with Janay Jain, Monisha Mane, Chandrajit Das and Prem Khullar i/b Parinam Law Associates
Buy Constitution of India HERE
