Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, recently, restrained the Peppy Store and other entities from infringing Jackie Shroff’s publicity and personality rights. The court noted that Shroff established a prime facie case and the balance of convenience was also in his favor. 

The bench of Justice Sanjeev Narula held, “The said material is prima-facie prejudicial to the Plaintiff’s
reputation and violates his personality rights. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against such defendants”.

Jackie Shroff, a distinguished Indian actor, initiated legal proceedings to protect his name, image, likeness, persona, voice, and other distinctive attributes from unauthorized online usage. He asserted his status as a celebrated and accomplished actor in the Indian film industry, having appeared in over 220 films, television shows, and web series, and having endorsed various products and services. His notable works included ‘Ram Lakhan’, ‘Tridev’, ‘Devdas’, and ‘Parinda’. Shroff received numerous accolades, such as the Special Honour Jury Award at the Asianet Awards for his contribution to Indian cinema, the National Award - Hindi Cinema Gaurav Samman in 2017, and several Filmfare Awards.

As per his plea, beyond his film career, Shroff invested significant effort to cultivate the goodwill and reputation associated with his name ‘Jackie Shroff’ in the entertainment industry. His prominent stature extended beyond his on-screen roles to encompass his overall persona and brand. Shroff’s commercial endorsements leveraged his personality, name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms, and other uniquely identifiable characteristics, over which he exercised exclusive control, constituting his personality and publicity rights. Unauthorized use of these characteristics for commercial purposes infringed upon these rights and diluted the brand equity he painstakingly built over the years. As a celebrity, Shroff possessed personality and publicity rights over all facets of his persona.

Unauthorized use of any of these elements infringed upon his exclusive rights, he alleged. Shroff's case is that the name ‘Jackie Shroff’, being his personal name, carried substantial goodwill and reputation and names like ‘Jackie’, ‘Jaggu Dada’, and ‘Bhidu’ are exclusively linked to Shroff, and unauthorized use by third parties was likely to cause confusion. His name was protectable as a trademark under Section 2(m) of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

Shroff claimed ownership of the Marathi slang “Bhidu,” meaning ‘a close friend,’ asserting statutory rights over the trademark based on registrations in class 25 (covering garments) and class 41 (covering education, training, entertainment, sporting, and cultural activities). He alleged that Defendant No. 9’s trade name used for their restaurant constituted trademark infringement. 

Advocate Pravin Anand, representing Shroff, limited his request for an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to specific defendants, including those allegedly selling infringing merchandise, creating and publishing infringing videos, and engaging in other unauthorized activities. Despite some defendants removing infringing listings, Advocate Anand argued that their actions warranted an injunction to prevent future infringement.

The court observed that the detailed facts presented in the plaint established Shroff’s status as a celebrity, inherently granting him certain rights over his personality and associated attributes. Cited case law underscored the legal protections available to individuals in Shroff's position, particularly the case of D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors., which held that the right of publicity protects individuals against unauthorized use of their personality. Unauthorized use could result in unearned commercial gain, infringing on the individual's rights.

The bench noted that the Peppy Store was accused of selling wall art featuring animated images of Shroff on their website. Despite removing the listing, their counsel argued that the artwork fell under fair use and highlighted Shroff’s prior appreciation of the artwork, introducing ambiguity regarding his current objections. Advocate Anand challenged the relevance of the Instagram video cited by the defendant but agreed to clarify Shroff's position to the court.

The court reviewed the video titled ‘JACKIE SHROFF IS SAVAGE (*) JACKIE SHROFF THUG LIFE!’ The term ‘Thug Life,’ as defined on dictionary.com, is a slang expression meaning “a determined and resilient attitude to succeed in life despite racism and injustice,” particularly in Black hip-hop culture. A basic internet search reveals that ‘Thug Life’ is commonly used in rap music, social media, and youth slang to denote a tough, resourceful persona. 

In this context, the court noted that ‘savage’ typically refers to someone seen as tough, fearless, and unapologetically bold. The term ‘Thug Life’ often appears in memes portraying individuals with boldness or audacity, usually with humor or defiance. The phrase highlights cleverness or resistance, portraying the individual as admirable rather than nefarious. A YouTube search for ‘thug life’ shows various videos indicating that the term is generally meant as a compliment.

The court held that the video could be viewed as a tribute to Mr. Shroff’s assertive demeanor. It compiled public interview clips portraying Mr. Shroff’s forthrightness and wit. The creator's additions, such as the ‘Thug Life’ caption and visual embellishments, underscore Mr. Shroff’s charismatic and assertive persona, consistent with meme culture’s celebration of such traits. Thus, Advocate Anand’s claim that the video casts Mr. Shroff in a derogatory light may not align with the contemporary use of ‘Thug Life’ in popular culture. The portrayal does not introduce falsehoods but embellishes the existing public perception of Mr. Shroff as formidable and commendable. Therefore, the court seeks Defendant No. 5’s response to the plaintiff’s allegation that the video tarnishes his reputation, as it requires further scrutiny.

The court noted that such videos are a form of artistic expression requiring creators to engage thoughtfully with their content, involving research, curation, and editing of diverse materials into an entertaining package. This creative process generates economic value and employment opportunities for many young individuals. 
Consequently, the court held that Shroff established a prima facie case for an ex-parte injunction. The balance of convenience lies in his favor. Failure to grant an injunction will result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff, affecting his financial standing and his right to live with dignity.

Accordingly, the court listed the matter for October 15. 

Case Title: Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v The Peppy Store & Ors (CS(COMM) 389/2024)