On Wednesday, the Delhi High Court hinted that it would issue a ruling granting an interim injunction in favour of filmmaker and producer Karan Johar, who is seeking protection for his personality and publicity rights.
Karan Johar seeks protection for his personality
In response to Johar`s case, the court issued summonses to many online platforms and websites, requesting that social media intermediaries Meta Platforms and others produce Basic Subscriber Information as well as IT log records.
“In the IA, I will pass a detailed order. Injunction to be granted,” Justice Manmeet PS Arora orally indicated.
The court stated that it would issue an interim ruling on many problems brought by Johar, including the unlawful selling of products bearing his name and image, disparity and obscenity, domain name, impersonation, and fake profiles.
In addition to protecting his personality and publicity rights, Johar had requested that the court issue an order prohibiting certain websites and platforms from illegally selling products bearing his name and image, such as mugs and T-shirts.
He filed the lawsuit, claiming that numerous entities had used his name, image, persona, and likeness without his permission for monetary advantage.
“I have a right to ensure that no one unauthorisedly uses my persona, face, or voice,” prominent counsel Rajshekhar Rao, who represents Johar, previously stated.
The right to publicity (also known as personality rights) is the right to protect, control, and profit from one`s image, name, or likeness.
Johar was also represented by advocate Nizam Pasha and the DS Legal law firm.
Verdict on his case
The lawyer for one of the defendants, Redbubble, stated that it will take steps to remove the infringing statement mentioned in the complaint within a week.
Johar`s motion comes after the high court heard and issued interim instructions on the petitions brought by the actress couple Aishwarya Rai Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan to preserve their personality and publicity rights.
The lawyers for Meta Platforms contended that many of the comments mentioned in Johar`s action were not defamatory, and that issuing a blanket injunction would open the floodgates for litigation.
“These are just everyday individuals making comments and having discussions. “The majority of them are satire and jokes, not defamatory,” the attorney stated.
