Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Bombay High Court has upheld the stay on the release of the film “Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar,” ruling that the movie violates the personality and publicity rights of renowned filmmaker and television personality Karan Johar (plaintiff). The court observed that the defendants had unlawfully used Johar’s name to commercially exploit his brand, riding on his goodwill and reputation.

A Single judge bench comprising Justice R.I. Chagla, noted: “unauthorizedly using the Plaintiff’s name and personality attributes in the title of the said film prima facie violates the Plaintiff’s personality rights, publicity rights and right to privacy.”

The plaintiff, Karan Johar moved the High Court against the film featuring two protagonists named “Karan” and “Johar,” who aspired to become Bollywood directors, and its script contained multiple references to “Karan Johar” and his production company, “Dharma Productions.” Johar argued that the film's title and script directly referenced his name and profession. It was contended that as a highly celebrated director, producer, and recipient of the Padma Shri award, his name had acquired significant commercial value, which the defendants sought to exploit without authorization. It was also argued that this amounted to an unauthorized use of his personality rights, misleading audiences into believing that he was associated with the film.

On the other hand, the producers (defendants/ respondents) argued that “Karan” and “Johar” were merely character names, not a reference to Karan Johar, and that adding “Aur” distinguished them. Additionally, they proposed adding a disclaimer stating that the film had no connection to Karan Johar. The defendants also contend that the film was fit for public release, citing the certification granted by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC) as proof.

The court, however, rejection the contentions of the defendants, emphasising that by using the words “Karan” and “Johar” in conjunction with “Director” in the film’s title, the defendants were clearly referencing Karan Johar. The film’s storyline—where the protagonists aspire to become Bollywood directors—further reinforced this association. The court also found no merit in the argument that adding “AUR” (and) between the first and last name of the plaintiff would avoid confusion amongst public. “Mere addition of “AUR” in between “Karan” and “Johar” is an adequate solution to avoid any possible confusion that may be caused in the minds of public that the said film is associated with the Plaintiff. By such understanding, the Respondents are destroying the concepts of intellectual property rights and brand name,” the court held.

The court also rejected the defendants’ offer to include a disclaimer stating that the film had no connection to Karan Johar observing that “such disclaimer does not protect the personality right and brand name of the Plaintiff and hence is not an adequate remedy.”

With regards the grant of the CBFC certificate, the court clarified that the CBFC evaluates films based on public decency and morality but does not assess whether a film violates an individual’s intellectual property or personal rights. The court stated: “Merely because CBFC certificate has been obtained for the said film, the same does not restrict the Plaintiff’s right to take action against the said film for violation of the Plaintiff’s rights.”

Emphasising that allowing the film’s release with its current title and content would cause irreparable harm to Karan Johar, the court ruled in his favour and made the interim stay on the film’s release absolute.

 

Cause Title: Karan Johar v India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors. [INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.17865 OF 2024 IN COMM IPR SUIT (L) NO.17863 OF 2024]

Appearance: Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Parag Khandhar, Ms. Pranita Saboo, Ms. Anaheeta Verma, Ms. Pratyusha Dhodda and Mr. Shayan Bisney i/b. DSK Legal for the Plaintiff.; Mr. Ashok Saraogi, with Mr. Anand Mishra, Mr. Sushil Upadhyay, Mr. Amit Dubey, Mr. Siddharth Singh and Ms. Priti Rao for Defendant No.2