Madras High Court: While hearing an application in a commercial suit, wherein plaintiff Ilaiyaraaja sought protection of his publicity and personality rights against unauthorized exploitation in digital and electronic media, a Single Judge Bench of N. Senthilkumar, J., found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement. The Court emphasised that attributes such as name, image, voice, and photographs cannot be commercially exploited or falsely endorsed without prior authorisation and observed that the plaintiff’s persona was being misused and monetised on a daily basis. Thus, the Court allowed the plea for interim relief, granted an injunction restraining such unauthorized use until 19-12-2025.
Background:
The plaintiff is a distinguished creative personality whose scope encompasses roles as composer, conductor, arranger, orchestrator, lyricist, and vocalist. His career includes more than 8,500 songs, music for over 1,450 feature films in nine languages, and lyrics for 1,500 songs. He is celebrated with titles such as Isaignani and Maestro and was voted the All-Time Greatest Film-Music Director of India in 2013, also ranking among the top 25 greatest composers in 2014.
The plaintiff asserted absolute ownership of his musical works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and claims personality rights over his name, image, voice, photographs, nicknames, and likeness. These attributes form a unique identity closely tied to his reputation and creative work.
It was contended that defendants, including digital platforms, YouTube channels, streaming apps, and TV networks, were deliberately exploiting the plaintiff’s identity, name, image, and creative works, in blatant disregard of his personality rights, on digital platforms to gain traction and generate revenue without authorisation.
The plaintiff sought court intervention through permanent and mandatory injunctions to restrain further misuse, removal of unauthorised content, and an account of profits earned by the defendants from exploiting his identity and works.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that the plaintiff has demonstrated through his pleadings and supporting documents that his personality rights must be protected with regard to his name, images/photographs, comical or animated depictions, voice, or any other attribute identifiable with him. The Court noted that these cannot be exploited for commercial or personal gain, or otherwise misused without his prior consent or authorisation, nor can false endorsements be permitted in any format or medium, digital or otherwise, pending disposal of the suit.
The Court observed that since the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case showing that his name, image, and works are being exploited and monetised on a daily basis, he is entitled to the relief of injunction sought in this application. Consequently, the Court held that the relief of injunction was warranted and granted it until 19-12-2025.
The Court further directed issuance of notice to the respondents, permitted private notice, and ordered compliance with Order 39 Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
[Ilaiyaraaja v. John Doe, OA No. 1091 of 2025, decided on 21-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant(s): Prabakaran, Senior Counsel for Thyagarajan K, A. Saravanan, S. Magimairaj
For the Respondent(s): Abhishek Malhotra, Senior Counsel for A.R. Pradeep, Diwagar, M. Narendran for King & Partridge, S. Gayathri for Swaroop, Rahul Balaji, K. Harishankar, T. Saikrishnan, Aparajitha Vishwanath