THE JHARKHAND STORY DESK
New Delhi, May 18: The Delhi High Court has imposed a prohibition on the use of actor Jackie Shroff’s name, voice, and images for commercial purposes without authorization, along with the nicknames “Jackie” and “Jaggu Dadda”.
In an interim order dated May 15, Justice Sanjeev Narula declared that the entities running an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot platform and selling wallpapers, T-shirts, and posters, among other items, on e-commerce websites, were acting prima facie in violation of the actor’s publicity rights and personality by misusing and exploiting his characteristics.
The judge also issued a directive against two content creators who posted videos of Shroff containing highly offensive language and profanities.
Delhi HC grants ex-parte injunction in favor of actor Shroff
According to the court, Shroff has certain inherent rights over his personality and related characteristics because he is a celebrity.
“The plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. Balance of convenience lies in his favour and against defendants no. 3-4, 6-7, 13 and 14. If an injunction is not granted in the present case, it will lead to irreparable loss/harm to the Plaintiff, not only financially but also with his right to live with dignity,” the Delhi HC noted.
Also Read- Bibhav Kumar detained in Swati Maliwal assault case; AAP presents video, alleges false claims
“It becomes evident that the alleged activities of some of the defendants have, on a prima facie basis, resulted in commercial benefits through the unauthorised exploitation of the plaintiff’s personality. Such defendants have utilised the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, and other unique characteristics without permission, thereby infringing on his personality and publicity rights,” the court stated.
Delhi HC issues notices over alleged rights infringement
Regarding an alleged infringement of his rights, the court served notice to a number of other entities, including a restaurant owner who used the registered trademark “Bhidu” for his establishment and a YouTube content provider who hosted an allegedly disparaging video.
Regarding the video, the court stated that the actor’s depiction did not present any falsehood. Instead, it enhanced his already established public image as being strong, and therefore, the court would prefer to hear from the YouTuber before making any decision.
The court scheduled the case for additional hearings on October 15.
The court also instructed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to provide the requisite instructions to telecommunication and internet service providers to block the URLs infringing upon the rights.
