Introduction:

In a significant ruling safeguarding celebrity privacy rights and regulating the boundaries of free speech on digital platforms, the Bombay High Court, through Justice Riyaz Chagla, delivered an ad-interim order in Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh [Commercial IPR Suit (Lodging) 20577 of 2025], restraining a Bihar-based criminal lawyer from using “Sonu Nigam” as the display name on his X (formerly Twitter) account to prevent public confusion and reputational harm to the renowned playback singer Sonu Nigam.

Arguments:

The plaintiff, represented by a legal team led by Advocate Hiren Kamod, argued that the defendant’s use of the name “Sonu Nigam” had caused significant misrepresentation on social media, leading many users to believe that controversial opinions expressed from the defendant’s account were being made by the singer himself, who had exited Twitter in 2017. The posts made by the defendant on sensitive topics like politics, cricket, and language debates, while controversial in themselves, had the unintended consequence of subjecting the singer to online abuse and reputational loss due to mistaken identity. Citing such incidents where netizens abused the singer for comments made by the defendant, the plaintiff urged the Court to issue an ex-parte injunction to preserve his right to privacy, which includes the right to be let alone, as protected under Article 21 of the Constitution. The plaintiff further submitted that his personal name, owing to his decades-long artistic contribution and fame, had attained a ‘distinctive’ status similar to that of a trademark, and its unauthorized use on a commercial platform like X without clarification from the defendant amounted to passing off.

Judgement:

The Court, after evaluating the evidence, social media posts, and screenshots of user comments, agreed that prima facie the use of the name “Sonu Nigam” by the defendant on X was causing widespread confusion and irreparable injury to the singer’s public image. Justice Chagla emphasized that while the Constitution guarantees every citizen the right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a), it is not an unbridled right and must yield when it infringes upon another citizen’s right to privacy. The Court also acknowledged that even celebrities have a right to be let alone, free from harassment, confusion, and unauthorized association with contentious public discourse. In light of this, the bench held that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and that the defendant’s silence in the face of mounting confusion only served to reinforce the appearance of mala fide intent. The Court held that this was not a mere case of innocent misrepresentation by an unaware individual but an example of dishonest conduct that “reeks of mala fides,” especially since the defendant had previously attempted to justify the use of the name as a coincidence without disassociating himself from the confusion it generated. The judge further clarified that the defendant was free to use his full legal name “Sonu Nigam Singh” as his display name, which would reduce confusion and not violate the plaintiff’s rights. Accordingly, an ex-parte injunction was granted, barring the defendant from using “Sonu Nigam” alone on social media platforms, especially on X. The judge noted that such identity-based misrepresentation can amount to the tort of passing off and deserves judicial protection to avoid exploitation of celebrity goodwill in a digital world where reputational damage spreads rapidly. The Court adjourned the matter for further hearing on August 4, 2025.