Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which talks about very important personality rights. 
• The Judgment was delivered by a single judge bench consisting of Justice Manmohan. 

Facts   

• Titan Industries Ltd. (plaintiff) has filed a lawsuit seeking permanent injunction to restrain copyright infringement, misappropriation of personality rights, passing off, damages, etc. 
• Titan is a company established in 1987 as a joint venture between TATA group and TIDCO, engaged in manufacturing watches, clocks, and jewelry. 
• Titan owns the brand TANISHQ for jewelry and engaged Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan as brand ambassadors for its diamond jewelry collection. 
• An agreement dated 17th March, 2011 between Titan and Amitabh Bachchan transferred all intellectual property rights related to their services to Titan. 
• Titan's "True Diamonds" advertisement campaign featuring the Bachchans was extensive, focusing on educating consumers about the 4Cs of diamond quality. 
• Titan alleges that Ramkumar Jewellers (defendant) put up hoardings in Muzaffarnagar, Uttar Pradesh, using exact copies of Titan's advertisements featuring the Bachchans. 
• Titan claims this infringes their copyright and constitutes passing off, misleading the public to believe Ramkumar Jewellers is associated with TANISHQ. 
• The defendant denies putting up the hoardings, claiming they were the work of unknown persons or competitors trying to cause trouble. 
• The defendant claims they filed a police complaint on September 5, 2011, about this alleged mischief. 
• At the court hearing, the defendant stated they have no objection to a permanent injunction being granted in favor of the plaintiff, provided Titan foregoes its claims for damages and costs.

Issue Involved

• Whether permanent injunction should be issued in order to protect the personality rights of the persons?  

Observation 

• It was observed by the Court that by virtue of Section 17 (b) of the Copyright Act, 1957 (CA) the plaintiff is the first owner of the copyright in the said advertisement. 
• The Court further observed that plaintiff has an exclusive license from Mr. Amitabh Bachchan and Mrs. Jaya Bachchan titled “Agreement for services” for endorsement of TANISHQ Diamond jewellery for a specified period. 
• Thus, plaintiff is the owner of the copyright in all works/material conceived, created, reduced to any medium of expression and/or produced pursuant to this Agreement. 
• Right of Publicity of a Celebrity 
  • In the case of Haelan Laboratories v. Topps Chewing Gum (1953) the Court held that: 
    • A man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph, i.e., the right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture, and that such a grant may validly be made in gross, i.e., without an accompanying transfer of a business or of anything else. 
    • This right might be called a right of publicity. 
  • The Court defined a celebrity as a famous or well-known person. A celebrity is a person who many people talk or know about. 
  • The Court held that the right to commercial use of human identity is the right to publicity. 
• The Court held that when the identity of a famous personality is used in advertisement without their permission the complaint is not that no one should not commercialize their identity but that the right to control when, where and how their identity is used should vest with the famous personality. 
• The Court held that the three basic elements for liability in right of publicity cases:  
  • Validity: Plaintiff owns an enforceable right in the identity of a human being 
  • Identifiability: The celebrity must be identifiable from defendant's unauthorized use 
  • No proof of falsity, confusion, or deception is required when the celebrity is identifiable 
• Further, the Court held that the right of publicity extends beyond traditional false advertising laws. 
• Methods of proving identification:  
  • For well-known celebrities, "unaided identification" through simple comparison of defendant's use and plaintiff's identifying features may be sufficient 
  • This face comparison is relevant in the current case as the defendant's hoardings clearly show the Bachchans, being an exact replica of Titan's Tanishq advertisement 
• Other methods to prove significant identification:  
  • Evidence of multiple elements in the defendant's use that collectively point to the plaintiff 
  • Direct or circumstantial evidence of the defendant's intent to trade upon the plaintiff's identity, from which identifiability can be presumed 
• Thus, the Court in the facts of the present case granted permanent injunction.  

Conclusion 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down what would constitute celebrity and the right to publicity of a celebrity.