Personality Rights In India - An Emerging Branch Of Intellectual Property Law
Author: LawSphereX
Category: Intellectual Property
Published:
Updated:
PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA: AN EMERGING
BRANCH OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW
Tanvi Chadha, Amity Law School, Noida
ABSTRACT
Personality rights, encompassing the right of an individual to control the commercial use of their identity, have emerged as a significant area of legal discourse in India. Traditionally, Indian intellectual property law has dealt with the protection of creative and industrial works, but the growing recognition of a person’s name, image, voice, likeness, and other distinctive attributes as protectable assets reflects an evolving jurisprudence. The Indian judiciary has played a significant role in acknowledging these rights, especially in recent instances involving well-known individuals like Anil Kapoor, Daler Mehndi, Jackie Shroff, and Amitabh Bachchan. These rulings draw attention to the difficulties associated with the unapproved use of celebrity identities, particularly in the era of deepfakes, digital manipulation, and commercial piracy.
The paper highlights the lack of codified protection and places personality rights within the context of intellectual property law by looking at these judicial developments. In order to establish personality rights as a crucial and developing area of intellectual property law in India. The paper concludes by advocating for a statutory regime that balances the commercial value of personality rights with constitutional guarantees of free speech and public interest, thereby positioning personality rights as an essential and emerging branch of intellectual property law in India. Keywords: Personality rights, right of publicity, intellectual property, celebrity rights, digital exploitation.
INTRODUCTION
Often referred to as the "right of publicity," personality rights are a new area of intellectual property law that has gradually gained acceptance in India. In a society increasingly influenced by digital media, advertising, and celebrity culture, these rights particularly cover a person's name, picture, voice, signature, gestures, and other distinguishing characteristics that have commercial worth. Personality rights in India have mostly developed through jurisprudential rather than legislative means. Courts have acknowledged the importance of shielding people from unapproved commercial exploitation, especially at a time when celebrity endorsements rule advertising campaigns and the abuse of personal characteristics is common on digital platforms.
Personality rights are a critical concern for both celebrities and common people whose identities can be exploited for financial gain or deceit, since the spread of social media, artificial intelligence, and deepfake technologies has increased the possibility of exploitation. In accordance with Article 211 of the Constitution, which safeguards autonomy, privacy, and dignity, personality rights are recognised in India. Nonetheless, doctrinal difficulties and inconsistent enforcement persist due to the lack of codified legislation. By incorporating ideas from intellectual property, tort law, and constitutional rights, the judiciary has tried to close this gap, but it is still difficult to distinguish between acceptable usage, parody, free speech, and commercial misappropriation.
In light of this, recent cases involving celebrities like Daler Mehndi, Jackie Shroff, Amitabh Bachchan, and Anil Kapoor show how the judiciary is beginning to recognise personality rights and how urgently statutory recognition is needed in India. JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA: A CASE STUDY APPROACH
DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors.2- One of the first court recognitions of personality rights in India was this landmark judgement. Daler Mehndi’s management company, DM Entertainment, filed the Delhi High Court against the sale of dolls resembling the singer, which were being promoted without consent. Since the Court determined that unapproved commercial exploitation of a celebrity's character constituted to passing off, it prohibited the defendants from producing or marketing such goods. Crucially,
1 The Constitution of India.
2 DM Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors. CS(OS) 893/2002
the Court recognised that a celebrity's persona, which includes their voice, image, and resemblance, has economic worth and should be shielded from infringement. The basis for acknowledging publicity rights as a component of India's larger intellectual property regime was established by this ruling. • Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff vs The Peppy Store & Ors. 3 - Jackie Shroff filed a case with the Delhi High Court in 2023 to defend his personality rights from unapproved commercial usage. Without permission, the defendants were selling goods including t-shirts, mugs, and stickers with his pictures, nicknames ("Jackie," "Jaggu Dada"), and catchphrases ("bhidu," "bindas"). Shroff claimed that these acts were against his publicity rights, cost him money, and deceived customers into thinking he approved of them.
The Court acknowledged that a celebrity's persona consists of their name, voice, likeness, nicknames, and distinctive phrases— all of which are protected by law. Unauthorised usage is equivalent to passing off and violating someone's right to privacy, it was noted. The defendants were prohibited from using Shroff's persona for any purpose, including memes, internet platforms, and tangible goods, by an interim injunction that was issued. This case strengthens Indian jurisprudence on celebrity rights in the digital age, aligning with the recent trend of expanding protection beyond traditional media. • Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Ors4- Anil Kapoor, an actor, sued the Delhi High Court in 2023 to defend his personality rights from unapproved commercial exploitation.
Without his consent, the defendants had utilized his name, images, and catchphrases, such as "Jhakaas," on internet platforms, memes, goods, and GIFs. Such misuse, according to Kapoor, diminished the value of his brand, violated his rights to publicity, and might lead the public to believe that he had approved of the goods. The identity of a celebrity, including their name, likeness, voice, picture, and signature expressions, is considered their intellectual property, the Court stressed. It prevented the defendants from profitably using Kapoor's identity in products, memes, and digital content because it acknowledged the danger of misuse in the digital age. • Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors5- In 2022, legendary actor Amitabh Bachchan approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of his personality rights. The defendants
3 Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie ... vs The Peppy Store & Ors. CS(COMM) 389/2024
4 Anil Kapoor vs Simply Life India & Ors CS(COMM) 652/2023
5 Amitabh Bachchan vs Rajat Nagi & Ors CS(COMM) 819/2022
were discovered to have unlawfully used his name, images, and even his well-known voice in products, online promotions, and lotteries. According to Bachchan, such unapproved use not only constituted passing off but also infringed upon his dignity and right to publicity. The Court ruled that a celebrity's identity cannot be used for profit without permission, acknowledging his prominence as a well-respected public figure. The defendants were prohibited from utilising his persona in any way, including in internet platforms, lottery promotions, and commercials, by an ex parte ad-interim order that was obtained. This case established a precedent for safeguarding celebrities' personal and professional identities against digital and commercial piracy, thereby reinforcing India's legal protection of personality rights.
CHALLENGES
AND DOCTRINAL AMBIGUITIES Judicial interpretation, not legislative codification, has played a major role in shaping India's acceptance of personality rights. Even while courts have steadily broadened the definition of this right, there are still a number of issues and doctrinal uncertainties. The lack of a statutory definition is one of the main obstacles. In India, personality rights are not codified in law, in contrast to copyright, trademark, or design law. The main sources of their protection are constitutional clauses like Article 216 (right to life and personal liberty) and the discretion of judges in interpreting the rights to privacy and publicity. This makes it difficult to determine the exact extent of the right. For example, it is still unclear if personality rights are exclusive to superstars or if regular people can also use them.
The relationship to different intellectual property systems is the subject of a second doctrinal ambiguity. Trademark law and personality rights frequently intersect, particularly when a celebrity's name or image is utilised in consumer goods. However, confusion results from the lack of a distinct demarcation. For instance, personality rights are inalienable and do not need official recognition, whereas trademark law demands registration and uniqueness. Enforcement is complicated by this duality, especially when both rights are asserted at the same time. Finally, the advent of digital platforms, artificial intelligence, and deepfakes has created unprecedented complexities. Misuse of celebrity likeness through AI-generated voices, synthetic media, and virtual avatars challenges traditional enforcement. Existing tort law or
6 The Constitution of India.
passing-off principles are insufficient to deal with such technologically advanced infringements. In sum, while judicial recognition has been progressive, the doctrinal ambiguities regarding the scope, nature, overlap, and enforcement of personality rights remain unresolved. Unless addressed by a statutory framework, the development of this branch of law will continue to be ad hoc, fragmented, and reactive to individual disputes rather than comprehensive in scope. THE WAY FORWARD Moving towards a complete statutory framework is essential to resolving the ambiguities surrounding personality rights in India. Currently, inconsistent standards have been produced by the dependence on piecemeal judicial orders and constitutional interpretation. Legislative action could bring principles into harmony and give third parties and rights holders clarification.
First and foremost, a law should specify precisely what characteristics of a persona are protected by personality rights. A person's name, picture, likeness, voice, signature, and unique facial expressions should all be included. The legislation would be future-proofed against technology misuse by incorporating digital avatars, holograms, and AI-generated imitations. Secondly, the statute should resolve the debate on the nature of personality rights. A hybrid strategy, in which the right consists of both proprietary and personal components, might be appropriate. By requiring agreement before any unauthorised exploitation, the personal aspect would safeguard privacy and dignity. People, especially celebrities, would be able to license and profit from their personas because to the proprietary element.
Third, a registration system for commercial exploitation ought to be included in the act. A system that permits celebrities to register their personas for economic protection could expedite enforcement, even if inherent personality rights must exist regardless of registration. For celebrities, sportsmen, musicians, and influencers whose identities have substantial commercial value, such a registry would be very helpful. Fourth, the Act should also aim to cover enforcement procedures and remedies. This covers both criminal penalties in cases of deliberate misappropriation and civil remedies such as injunctions, damages, and an accounting of profits. Effectiveness would be increased by include provisions for quick relief in digital circumstances, such as deepfakes or online abuse.
In conclusion, a dedicated statutory framework would ensure certainty, consistency, and balance, transforming personality rights from a judicially constructed concept into a robust branch of intellectual property law.
CONCLUSION
The acceptance of personality rights in India shows the growing understanding of an individual’s power over their identity in a commercialised and media driven culture. Courts are willing to protect the business and prestige of celebrities, as seen by recent judicial interventions in instances involving Daler Mehndi, Jackie Shroff, Amitabh Bachchan, and Anil Kapoor. However, the lack of a statutory framework has made personality rights susceptible to overlapping with current privacy and intellectual property laws, inconsistent enforcement, and doctrinal uncertainties. The unapproved use of personality traits on social media, gaming platforms, and products has increased the urgency for explicit codification as India moves toward a digitally connected economy.
A well-balanced framework should respect free speech, artistic expression, and the public interest while still preserving individual autonomy. In the end, preserving human dignity and avoiding unfair economic appropriation are just as important as defending the interests of celebrities when it comes to personality rights. In addition to bringing Indian jurisprudence into line with international norms and promoting respect for both identity and expression, a thorough legal framework will bring much-needed clarity and uniformity.