Delhi High Court Bars Unauthorised Commercial Use of Amitabh Bachchan’s Name, Image

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has issued a final judgment in the personality rights case of Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan, barring the unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice and other aspects of his personality.

Justice Parshinder Kumar Kaurav passed the final decree in the suit. In November 2022, the court had granted an ex parte interim injunction, which has now been merged into the final decree.

The court held that a person has control over the commercial use of their identity, which it described as the “right of publicity”. According to the court, Bachchan’s name and photographs were used without his consent in a manner that suggested he endorsed the products.

The suit was filed against the mobile application “Amitabh Bachchan Video Call”, alleged “Kaun Banega Crorepati” lottery messages, a general knowledge quiz book featuring his photograph, T-shirts, posters, and domain names registered in his name.

The judgment also granted protection against unidentified persons, known as “John Does”. The court observed that anonymous infringements continue on websites, apps, posters and messaging platforms, and that not every infringer can be traced. Bachchan was also given the liberty to take fresh action in the event of any future infringement.

Four of the eight defendants, namely Rajat Nagi, Manoj Publications, Tamatina and Mahesh Patel, settled with Bachchan. Under the settlement, one agreed to remove the video call app, another agreed to stop publishing the quiz book, and a third agreed to halt the sale of posters. The registrant of the amitabhbachchan.in domain told the court that the domain had been terminated. All four gave an assurance that they would not use Bachchan’s identity without permission in future. The court held the settlement to be legal and voluntary and passed the decree accordingly.

The remaining defendants neither appeared despite being served notice nor filed a written response, and their right to file a defence had already been closed. The court said that under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a judgment should not be passed automatically merely because no reply has been filed. However, it noted that there was no disputed fact in this case requiring a full trial. Recording evidence from Bachchan ex parte would only have repeated the allegations in the plaint, so a summary judgment was passed.