Bombay High Court Protects Singer Sonu Nigam’s Personality Rights | Directs Lawyer To Use Full Name On ‘X’ To Avoid Public Confusion And Passing Off
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Bombay Single Bench of Justice R.I. Chagla passed an ad-interim order restraining the use of the display name "Sonu Nigam" on the social media platform 'X' by the defendant, observing that the continued use of the plaintiff's name amounted to misrepresentation and the tort of passing off. The Court held that the display name had acquired distinctiveness and secondary significance linked solely to the plaintiff. It permitted the defendant to use his full name "Sonu Nigam Singh" but barred the standalone usage of "Sonu Nigam" in view of potential confusion and reputational damage. The Court found the defendant's conduct to be prima facie dishonest and motivated by mala fides. The order is effective until 5 August 2025, with the next hearing scheduled for 4 August 2025.
The plaintiff, a well-known playback singer and public personality with a career spanning over three decades, approached the Bombay High Court seeking protection of his personality rights including his name, image, likeness, and other identifiable traits from unauthorized usage. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had created an account on the social media platform 'X' (formerly Twitter) using the display name "Sonu Nigam" while operating under the username "SonuNigamSingh".
The plaintiff, who had voluntarily exited the platform 'X' in 2017 and deleted his account, was informed in June 2024 about the existence of the impugned account by a well-wisher. Upon investigation, the plaintiff found that the defendant's display name on the account was "Sonu Nigam," omitting his surname "Singh." The defendant’s account had amassed over 92,800 followers, including prominent national leaders and public figures. The plaintiff contended that this created a false association between the account and himself, especially considering his absence from the platform since 2017.
According to the plaintiff, the impersonation extended beyond the display name. The defendant allegedly posted politically charged and controversial content using the plaintiff’s name and image. Several posts were perceived by the general public to have originated from the plaintiff, leading to confusion and reputational harm. Numerous screenshots, user comments, and media reports were submitted by the plaintiff to demonstrate the widespread deception.
Exhibits appended to the plaint included screenshots from various streaming platforms displaying the plaintiff’s music, articles documenting the plaintiff's national and international recognition, and printouts from IMDb and Wikipedia reflecting the plaintiff’s awards and reputation. The plaintiff’s team had attempted to communicate with the defendant, requesting him to modify the display name to eliminate confusion. However, according to the plaint, the defendant refused to cooperate and responded with indecent language.
The plaintiff relied on his extensive fan following and the goodwill associated with his name, which he had used consistently as his stage name for nearly 30 years. He argued that the misuse by the defendant amounted to misappropriation of personality rights and a violation of his right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution of India.
The plaintiff also stated that the misleading use of his name had led to adverse reactions from the general public, including critical user comments and backlash in response to posts from the impugned account. It was argued that even when confronted with mistaken identity by other users, the defendant did not clarify the distinction but instead engaged with the public in a manner that reinforced the confusion.
To support his claims, the plaintiff cited judgments including Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd., where it was held that domain names and personal names can acquire distinctiveness akin to trademarks. Additional reliance was placed on Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal and Bajaj Electricals Ltd. v. Metals and Allied Products, which addressed similar issues of misrepresentation and unauthorized use of identity.
The plaintiff sought ex-parte ad-interim relief, contending that providing advance notice to the defendant would aggravate the situation and further harm his reputation. The plaintiff feared that the defendant might use the opportunity to escalate the impersonation or gain further public attention by misrepresenting the legal proceedings.
"Prima facie, I am convinced that the documents on record establish that the Plaintiff is a prominent singer-performer in India, having amassed considerable goodwill and reputation over a distinguished career and has acquired a celebrity status in India."
The Court recorded that the plaintiff’s stage name "Sonu Nigam," which is also his personal name, had achieved distinctiveness and was strongly associated with the plaintiff alone.
"The Defendant No. 1 is indeed using the Plaintiff’s distinctive stage name / mark 'Sonu Nigam' as the display name for his social media account on 'X'."
Justice Chagla noted that the peculiar circumstance in the case was that the defendant’s full name was "Sonu Nigam Singh," which included the plaintiff’s name in full. However, the defendant had chosen to use only the name "Sonu Nigam" in his display name.
"Prima facie, the Defendant No. 1 is egregiously exploiting the Plaintiff’s personality traits, especially his name, so as to actively as well as passively misrepresent to the general public that he is the Plaintiff."
The Court referred to specific incidents cited in the plaint, including a post dated 3 February 2025 where the defendant shared a picture of the plaintiff performing at Rashtrapati Bhavan, which the plaintiff had earlier shared on his verified Instagram. Following clarification from the plaintiff, the post was deleted by the defendant.
Further reference was made to a post-dated 1 December 2024, where religious sentiments were invoked using the plaintiff’s photograph and name. The Court stated: "To an average person of ordinary intelligence, it would most definitely appear that the Plaintiff is authoring the above statements."
The Court found that several users had publicly reacted to posts by the defendant believing them to be authored by the plaintiff. It was also noted: "Even though the above commentators are clearly under the misconception... the Defendant No. 1 has chosen to remain silent and has allowed these users to remain under the misbelief."
Justice Chagla observed that the defendant’s silence and engagement with such users compounded the misrepresentation. The Court stated: "This is not an ordinary case of misrepresentation and passing off by an unaware third party. The conduct of the Defendant No. 1 is ex-facie dishonest and reeks of mala fides."
On the question of freedom of speech, the Court recorded: "While every citizen has a right to freedom of speech and expression, the same is not an unbridled or unfettered right... the Plaintiff’s right to privacy which includes a 'right to be let alone' is protected by Article 21 of the Constitution of India."
The Court also noted that the plaintiff had consciously exited the platform ‘X’ in 2017 and therefore was not responsible for any content disseminated through the impugned account. The unauthorized use of his name, in this context, amounted to a violation of his fundamental rights.
The Court held that: "Pending the hearing and final disposal of this Suit, the Defendant No. 1, by himself and / or any person / entity claiming through him are restrained from using the impugned display name / account name 'Sonu Nigam' per se on social media platforms."
It was clarified that: "The Defendant No. 1 is free to use the whole name 'Sonu Nigam Singh' in respect of his social media account on 'X' which does not cause misrepresentation or confusion or deception amongst the members of the general public."
The Court permitted compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC through email or message on platform 'X', owing to the plaintiff’s unawareness of the defendant’s postal address. Once the address is known, compliance was directed through speed post.
Liberty was granted to the defendants to apply for variation or modification of the order after providing at least seven clear working days’ notice to the plaintiff’s advocates.
The matter is scheduled for hearing on 4 August 2025, and the interim protection will remain in force till 5 August 2025.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Mr. Janay Jain, Ms. Monisha Mane, Mr. Chandrajit Das, Mr. Prem Khullar i/b Parinam Law Associates
Case Title: Sonu Nigam v. Sonu Nigam Singh & Ors.
Case Number: Interim Application (L) No.20631 of 2025 in Comm IPR Suit (L) No.20577 of 2025
Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla
