Introduction:

In a significant win for filmmaker Karan Johar, the Bombay High Court has permanently restrained the release of the film Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar, ruling that the unauthorized use of his name violated his personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy. In Karan Johar vs. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd (Commercial IPR Suit 17863 of 2024), Justice Riyaz Chagla observed that the film’s title, which incorporates Johar’s name, unfairly capitalizes on his goodwill and reputation in the Bollywood industry. The Court had previously granted an interim stay on June 13, 2024, preventing the film’s release. After hearing detailed arguments from both sides, the Court made the stay absolute, effectively barring the film’s release. The judgment highlighted that Johar’s name had attained a distinctive identity in Indian cinema, entitling him to legal protection against its unauthorized commercial exploitation. The ruling further clarified that a CBFC certification does not shield a film from legal challenges related to personality rights. Despite the defendants’ offer to include a disclaimer stating that the film was not related to Karan Johar, the Court held that such a disclaimer was insufficient to prevent unjust commercial gains from his established brand.

Arguments of the Plaintiff (Karan Johar):

Karan Johar, represented by Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina and a legal team from DSK Legal, contended that the film’s title directly infringed upon his personality rights. He asserted that his name had acquired an exclusive and identifiable status in the entertainment industry, and any unauthorized use constituted an infringement. The suit emphasized that Johar had no connection with the film, and yet, the filmmakers had deliberately used his name to mislead the public and benefit from his established brand value. Johar argued that his reputation in the media industry had been built over decades, and the unauthorized use of his name would cause irreparable harm to his goodwill. The plaintiff further contended that the film’s title was not incidental but a calculated attempt to commercially exploit his name, particularly by including the word “Director” alongside “Karan” and “Johar,” creating a direct reference to his profession. He maintained that the defendants had no legal basis to use his name and that their actions violated his right to privacy and publicity, as recognized under Indian law. Additionally, Johar argued that the promotional materials and trailers of the film amplified the infringement by repeatedly making indirect references to him. His plea stated that this unauthorized use not only harmed his brand image but also set a dangerous precedent where public figures’ names could be misused for commercial benefits without consent.

Arguments of the Defendants (Filmmakers of Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar):

The defendants, represented by Advocates Ashok Saraogi and others, countered Johar’s claims by arguing that the names “Karan” and “Johar” were used independently for two separate fictional characters in the film. They contended that no direct reference was made to Karan Johar as an individual and that the film was a fictional story about two aspiring directors trying to make it in Bollywood. The defense further argued that the title was a creative expression protected under free speech and that Karan Johar did not have exclusive rights over common names like “Karan” and “Johar.” They asserted that their film had been duly certified by the CBFC and that Johar’s claims should not override the statutory clearance obtained for public exhibition. The defendants also proposed adding a disclaimer at the beginning of the film, clarifying that it had no association with Karan Johar. They maintained that Johar’s allegations were speculative and that audiences would not automatically associate the film with him just because of the title. Moreover, the defense stated that enforcing such an injunction would amount to censorship and could stifle creative freedom in the film industry. They argued that allowing Johar’s claim could lead to excessive restrictions on filmmakers, preventing them from using common names in film titles.

Court’s Judgment:

After reviewing the arguments, Justice Riyaz Chagla ruled in favor of Karan Johar, making the interim stay on the film’s release absolute. The Court held that the film’s title was not merely coincidental but was deliberately designed to create an association with Johar, thereby violating his personality and publicity rights. It observed that Johar’s name had acquired significant brand value in Bollywood, and the defendants were attempting to unjustly benefit from his reputation. The judgment stated that the use of “Karan” and “Johar” in conjunction with “Director” directly pointed to Johar’s profession, making it evident that the filmmakers intended to draw a connection with him. The Court rejected the defendants’ argument that “Karan” and “Johar” were separate character names, noting that in multiple scenes, the names were used conjointly as “Karan Johar,” reinforcing the association. Additionally, the Court clarified that while CBFC certification is necessary for public screening, it does not absolve filmmakers from legal liability for violating personality rights. The Court emphasized that the right to publicity is an inherent personal right, and unauthorized use of a well-known individual’s name to attract attention to a commercial project constitutes an infringement. Regarding the defendants’ proposal to include a disclaimer, the Court held that such disclaimers were insufficient to prevent brand misappropriation, as the public perception of the film’s title and promotional content had already created an undeniable reference to Johar. Ultimately, the Court ruled that the filmmakers had no legal right to use Johar’s name in the film title and restrained them from releasing or promoting Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar under its current title.