Delhi HC Issues Ban on Unauthorized Use of Jackie Shroff’s Name and Persona

The Delhi High Court has prohibited various entities from utilizing actor Jackie Shroff’s name, including sobriquets “Jackie” and “Jaggu Dadda”, voice, and images for commercial purposes without permission.

What did the High Court Said?

A single bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula stated that entities selling wallpapers, T-shirts, posters, etc., on e-commerce platforms, and operating an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot platform were prima facie violating the actor’s personality and publicity rights by exploiting and misappropriating his attributes.

The judge also issued the directive against two content creators who posted videos of Shroff containing “extremely profane words and abuses”.

The court noted that Shroff is a celebrity, entitling him to certain rights over his personality and associated attributes.

“The plaintiff has demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an ex-parte injunction. The balance of convenience lies in his favor and against defendants no. 3-4, 6-7, 13, and 14. Failure to grant an injunction in this case will result in irreparable harm to the Plaintiff, not only financially but also with his right to live with dignity,” observed the court.

“It is evident that certain defendants have, on a prima facie basis, gained commercial benefits through the unauthorized exploitation of the plaintiff’s personality. Such defendants have utilized the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, and other unique characteristics without permission, thereby infringing on his personality and publicity rights,” it added.

The court issued notices to certain other entities regarding alleged violations of his rights, including a YouTube content creator hosting an allegedly derogatory video and a restaurant owner using the registered trademark “Bhidu” for his establishment.

Regarding the video, the court stated that the actor’s portrayal did not introduce any falsehoods but rather embellished his existing public perception as being formidable. It expressed a desire to hear the YouTuber before making any orders.

“The format, akin to a meme, spoof, or parody, is part of a burgeoning comedic genre that leverages the cultural resonance of public figures to create engaging content. YouTubers are a growing community, and the substantial viewership of these videos translates into significant revenue for the creators, underscoring that such content is not merely entertainment but also a vital source of livelihood for a considerable segment, particularly, the youth,” the court noted.

“Restricting such creative expressions by enjoining defendant no. 5 from producing similar videos or blocking these videos might have far-reaching consequences for this vibrant community. More critically, it could set a precedent that stifles freedom of expression, potentially deterring the public from exercising their right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions,” it opined.

Next Hearing in October

The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 15 and directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary directions to the telecom service providers and internet service providers to block the infringing URLs.

Some defendants claimed they had removed the allegedly offending merchandise, and the court held that they would be bound by the undertaking.

The Actor’s Plea

Jackie Shroff had filed a petition earlier this month against the unlicensed use of his name and personality attributes by several entities for commercial gain.

His counsel objected to the “misuse” of his personality and publicity rights through the sale of merchandise and wallpapers as well as “insulting” memes and GIFs and the use of AI.

He also alleged infringement of his trademark rights on Marathi slang “bhidu”.

Shroff, represented by lawyer Pravin Anand, argued that individuals cannot mislead consumers into buying products thinking they are endorsed by the actor, who has worked in over 200 films.

In support of his case, Shroff’s counsel cited orders passed by the high court in similar lawsuits by actors Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor.

Read More: Supreme Court, Delhi High Court, States High Court, Other Courts, International