Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Bombay Division Bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik dismissed the appeal challenging the interim injunction restraining the appellants from using the respondent's name and personality attributes in the film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar." The Court upheld the order of the learned Single Judge which had restrained the appellants from using the name “Karan Johar” in the title, promotional materials, or in any manner in relation to the film. The Division Bench confirmed that the respondent’s personality and publicity rights merited protection and found no ground to interfere with the discretionary order of injunction passed below.

The appeal arose from an interim injunction granted in a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by the respondent before the learned Single Judge of the Bombay High Court. The respondent alleged unauthorised use of his name and attributes in the title and promotion of a cinematographic film titled "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar."

Also Read: Supreme Court : Insurer Liable For Fatal Trailer Mishap Pulled By Insured Tractor | Payment Ordered Within Two Months Under Root Cause Doctrine

The film was scheduled for release on 14 June 2024. Upon viewing the trailer on 5 June 2024, the respondent issued a cease and desist notice dated 6 June 2024. He sought immediate cessation of the use of his name and attributes. The appellants, however, did not respond, leading the respondent to move for urgent ad-interim relief before the learned Single Judge.

The learned Single Judge, by an order dated 13 June 2024, restrained the appellants from using the respondent's name and attributes in any manner in the title, promotional material, and release of the film. By a subsequent order dated 7 March 2025, the injunction was confirmed.

Aggrieved, the appellants approached the Division Bench. The appellants contended that the name “Karan Johar” used in the film’s title merely reflected two characters named "Karan" and "Johar," who were aspiring film directors. They argued that the title did not identify or relate to the respondent. They claimed no exclusive right existed in such commonly used names and submitted that the film did not concern the respondent.

The appellants emphasised that they had incurred substantial expenses and had obtained requisite certification from the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). They contended that once the film had been certified, no injunction ought to have been granted. It was also urged that a disclaimer had been inserted clarifying that the film had no connection with the respondent.

The appellants relied upon several precedents to support the proposition that common names, generalised titles, or fictional works could not be restrained on alleged infringement of personality rights. Amongst other decisions, they cited judgments from Delhi and Madras High Courts, and also relied on Supreme Court decisions recognising artistic freedom.

The respondent opposed the appeal. It was submitted that his name "Karan Johar" had acquired brand status and that the combined use of the names "Karan" and "Johar" along with the description of the characters as film directors, directly identified with him. The respondent argued that he had a valuable right in protecting the commercial exploitation of his name, identity, and goodwill. The respondent contended that the use of his name and attributes without consent amounted to unauthorised commercial use violating his personality and publicity rights.

The Division Bench after examining the rival contentions and the law, recorded several judicial findings.

The Court stated: “Prima facie, it does appear that the Respondent No.1 has garnered immense goodwill and reputation in the media and entertainment industry in India and globally. The Respondent No.1’s name has become a brand name and has obtained a brand value.”

The Court recorded that: “The names Karan and Johar when used together as done by the Appellant in relation to the said film clearly identifies Respondent No.1.”

It was further stated: “Using the name Karan and Johar in the title of the film together along with directors clearly indicate the intention of the Appellant to use the brand name of Respondent No.1 to attract the audience and violate his goodwill, right to privacy and personality right.”

Rejecting the argument that the names were generic, the Court observed: “The name Karan Johar is solely associated with the Respondent No.1 and forms a germane part of his personality and brand name. Further, it is an admitted position that the two characters Karan and Johar play the role of Bollywood film directors.”

Thus, the Court stated: “The juxtaposition of the name of the characters in the film and their profession makes a direct reference to only Respondent No.1 and nobody else.”

On the issue of CBFC certification, the Court clarified: “CBFC does not examine or evaluate whether the film violates personal rights, trademarks, personality rights, privacy rights or brand name. The remedy of the Respondent No.1 to take action against violation of personality or publicity rights is not barred merely because there is a certification.”

Addressing the disclaimer relied upon by the appellants, the Court held: “Such a disclaimer is not an adequate remedy for protecting personality and publicity rights of Respondent No.1.”

The Court summarised that in India, personality rights and publicity rights are judicially recognised. Referring to previous judgments, the Court stated: “The Courts in India have time and again recognised personality rights and publicity rights as judicially enforceable rights.”

Dealing with precedents cited by the appellants, the Court found them distinguishable, stating: “The reliance placed by learned counsel for the Appellant on other films which used protagonists' names is misplaced. The name of Respondent No.1 as Karan Johar is distinctive and widely recognised.”

Finally, on the scope of appellate interference, the Court applied settled principles and recorded: “We find no scope to interfere with the impugned order. The discretion exercised by the learned Single Judge granting injunction is on well settled sound legal principles.”

Also Read: Andhra Pradesh High Court Upholds Mandatory Two-Year Internship For Foreign Medical Graduates | Online Classes Cannot Replace Clinical Training

The Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellants against the order of injunction. It confirmed the injunction granted by the learned Single Judge which restrained the appellants from using the respondent's name or attributes in the title, promotional materials, posters, trailers, websites, hoardings, advertisements or release of the film in any manner whatsoever.

The Division Bench expressly held that there was no reason to interfere with the injunction. It directed that Interim Application (L) No. 9929 of 2025 and Interim Application (L) No. 10124 of 2025 stood disposed of accordingly.

The Court thus concluded that the appellants were restrained from releasing or promoting the film in its existing form which used the respondent’s name in any manner. The appeal accordingly stood dismissed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Appellants: Ashok M. Saraogi, Advocate; Anand Mishra, Advocate; Sushil Upadhyay, Advocate; Amit Dubey, Advocate; Siddharth Singh, Advocate; Priti Rao, Advocate; Kavya Smriti, Advocate

For the Respondents: Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate; Rashmin Khandekar, Advocate; Parag Khandhar, Advocate; Pranita Saboo, Advocate; Anaheeta Verma, Advocate; Pratyusha Dhoda, Advocate (i/b DSK Legal)

Case Title: Sanjay Singh v. Karan Johar also known as Rahul Johar and Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025:BHC-OS:7666-DB

Case Number: Commercial Appeal (L) No. 9786 of 2025

Bench: Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M.S. Karnik

[Read/Download order]