HC restrains unauthorised use of Amitabh’s name, likeness

The Delhi High Court permanently restrained people and businesses from using Amitabh Bachchan’s identity without his express permission. The order covers his name, image, voice, likeness and other aspects of his persona. It protects the commercial and personal control attached to his public identity.

The case involved several forms of unauthorised use. One application was titled Amitabh Bachchan Video Call. Another publication was a General Knowledge Quizbook featuring his image. Posters used his image, name and likeness, while a domain used his name. The relevant entities agreed to stop these uses or remove them.

The decree also applies to anonymous users, called “John Does”. The court noted continuing misuse through websites, applications, posters and messaging platforms. Its November 2022 interim injunction was merged into the final decree, creating continuing protection against identified and unidentified users.

Personality rights are protections over identifiable features of a person’s persona, such as a name, image, voice or likeness. They help prevent others from presenting those features as available for unauthorised promotion, products or services. The article links these protections with Bachchan’s publicity rights and right to privacy.

The case gives clear examples. An application used the title Amitabh Bachchan Video Call. A quizbook featured his image, and posters carried his image, name and likeness. Another domain used his name. The court’s solution was consent-based: the entities stopped, removed or deleted the uses and promised not to use his persona without express permission.

The decree matters because it reaches beyond one format. It covers websites, applications, posters and messaging platforms, including anonymous misuse. The court said Bachchan could not track every anonymous user. Protecting personality rights therefore gives a person a legal way to control unauthorised identity-based exploitation.

Four entities settled with Amitabh Bachchan and acknowledged his publicity rights and right to privacy. Their undertakings formed part of the compromise reflected in the decree. The settlements resolved several different kinds of alleged unauthorised use rather than just one disputed advertisement or product.

One entity removed the mobile application titled Amitabh Bachchan Video Call. Another discontinued its General Knowledge Quizbook, which featured the actor’s image. A third stopped selling posters bearing his image, name and likeness. The fourth deleted the domain name amitabhbachchan.in in November 2022 and said it had earned no monetary benefit from it.

All four entities promised not to use Bachchan’s name, image, voice, likeness or another aspect of his persona without express permission. The court decreed the suit against defendant numbers 1, 3, 5 and 8. The compromise application was to form part of the decree sheet, making the undertakings part of the court-recorded resolution.

A business using a celebrity’s identity without permission can face court-ordered restraints and a permanent decree. The exact consequences depend on the case. In Bachchan’s matter, the court required unauthorised uses to stop and confirmed that future use of his persona needed express permission.

The practical consequences were visible in the settlements. One entity removed its mobile application. Another discontinued its quizbook. One stopped selling posters, and another deleted the domain amitabhbachchan.in. All four undertook not to use Bachchan’s name, image, voice, likeness or other persona without permission. The article does not report damages or a fine.

Other defendants failed to appear or file written statements. Their right to file was closed on September 25, 2023. The court noted that commercial-suit deadlines cannot be extended beyond the prescribed period. It then allowed the decree against certain defendants and extended protection to anonymous users through the “John Does” order.

The decree applied to “John Does” because the alleged misuse was not limited to defendants whose identities Bachchan could name. The court found a continuing pattern of anonymous misuse of his persona. These unidentified users could operate online without being easily connected to a particular person or business.

The court specifically referred to websites, applications, posters and messaging platforms. It said Bachchan could not track the misuse to identified persons. The November 25, 2022 interim injunction had already operated against the John Does. The final decree therefore preserved that protection rather than limiting it to the four settled entities.

This approach gives the order practical reach. The named defendants who settled accepted Bachchan’s rights, while other defendants failed to appear or file written statements. The court ordered that the decree under the relevant plaint paragraphs would also operate against defendant number 10, representing the anonymous users.

Personality rights concern control over identifiable parts of a person’s persona, including a name, face, voice or likeness. Copyright, by contrast, generally protects an original creative work, such as a photograph, video or song. These are different legal interests, although one commercial use can raise both at once.

For example, a photograph of Bachchan may be protected as a creative work belonging to its copyright owner. Using that photograph to promote a product may separately involve Bachchan’s image and personality rights. The photographer’s permission would not automatically equal Bachchan’s permission to commercially exploit his persona. The article’s posters and quizbook illustrate this distinction in practical terms.

The Delhi High Court’s decree focused on unauthorised use of Bachchan’s identity. It covered his name, image, voice, likeness and other persona, not ownership of every creative work depicting him. The article does not decide who owned copyright in the disputed materials. It records that future use of his persona required express permission.

Publicity rights protect a person’s ability to control commercial use of their identity. Privacy protects personal control against unwanted use or exposure. The article treats both as relevant to Bachchan, whose name, image, voice and likeness were used across products, websites and other platforms without his consent.

The settlements show how the rights work together. Entities removed an application, discontinued a quizbook, stopped selling posters and deleted a domain. Each acknowledged Bachchan’s publicity rights and right to privacy. Their common undertaking was not to use his name, image, voice, likeness or another part of his persona without express permission.

The final decree makes that control stronger and wider. It applies to named defendants and anonymous “John Does”. The court noted that anonymous misuse continued through several channels and could not be fully tracked. The article therefore presents publicity and privacy as connected safeguards for identity, dignity and authorised commercial use.