Safiya Malik

The Bombay High Court has granted an injunction restraining the defendants from using the name "Karan Johar" in the title of the cinematographic film "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar" or "Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar" and in its promotional materials, including trailers, advertisements, hoardings, and social media platforms. The court was adjudicating an application seeking interim relief in a commercial intellectual property rights suit filed by the plaintiff against India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. and others.

The single-judge bench of Justice R.I. Chagla pronounced the order on March 7, 2025, following an urgent motion filed by the plaintiff seeking to prevent the release of the film, which was scheduled for theatrical release on June 14, 2024. The plaintiff submitted that he had come across the trailer of the said film on June 5, 2024, prompting him to issue a cease-and-desist notice to the defendants on June 6, 2024. As no response was received, the plaintiff moved the court for urgent relief, leading to an ad-interim order passed on June 13, 2024, restraining the defendants from using the plaintiff’s name in the film’s title and promotional materials. The defendants subsequently sought vacation of this order under Order XXXIX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.

Also Read: Wife, Separated From 1st Husband, Can Claim Maintenance From 2nd Husband Though 1st Marriage Not Legally Dissolved: Supreme Court

The plaintiff, a well-known filmmaker, television host, and media personality, argued that the use of his name in the film’s title infringed upon his personality and publicity rights. He contended that his name had acquired significant commercial value and was being used without authorization to commercially exploit his reputation. The plaintiff further submitted that the film was attempting to associate his name with content that was not representative of his brand or creative work, thereby causing harm to his goodwill.

The defendants argued that the names "Karan" and "Johar" in the film were used to refer to two different characters and were not intended to identify or reference the plaintiff. They submitted that the plaintiff had delayed approaching the court, despite knowing of the film’s release date, and that the film had already been certified by the Central Board of Film Certification (CBFC). The defendants also asserted that they had invested significant resources into the production and promotion of the film and that an injunction would cause financial loss.

The plaintiff relied on multiple judgments, including D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises & Anr., and Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, to support his claim that personality rights are enforceable and protectable under Indian law. The plaintiff further submitted that the defendants’ use of his name, coupled with the film’s storyline involving aspiring Bollywood directors, created an undeniable reference to him. The plaintiff also contended that his production house, Dharma Productions, was indirectly referenced in the film’s script, further solidifying the association with him.

The court observed: "The Plaintiff is a highly credited and leading Indian Director, Producer, Writer, Filmmaker, and Television Personality primarily working in the media and entertainment industry and is the recipient of several awards and accolades." The court found that the plaintiff had established goodwill and a brand identity that was commercially valuable and that unauthorized use of his name was likely to mislead the public.

The court also noted: "The Defendants, by using the name ‘Karan’ ‘Johar’ in relation to the said film, would commercially exploit the brand name obtained by the Plaintiff and which the Plaintiff alone has economic rights to commercially exploit as per his discretion." The court referred to judicial precedents recognizing the right to publicity and personality rights, stating that celebrities have an enforceable proprietary interest in their name and public persona.

Regarding the defendants’ argument that the names "Karan" and "Johar" were used separately and should not be considered a reference to the plaintiff, the court remarked: "By conjointly using ‘Director,’ which is the profession, along with the name of the Plaintiff and the aforementioned plot of the film, there is a direct and undeniable reference drawn to the Plaintiff." The court found that the film’s script contained multiple references to "Karan Johar" in a manner that would lead the public to associate it with the plaintiff.

The defendants had submitted that the mere addition of "Aur" between "Karan" and "Johar" would eliminate any likelihood of confusion. However, the court rejected this argument, stating: "By such understanding, the Respondents are destroying the concepts of intellectual property rights and brand name." The court also took note of the plaintiff’s submission that a simple online search for "Karan Aur Johar" resulted in references to the plaintiff, indicating that the association in the public mind was inescapable.

The defendants offered to include a disclaimer in the film stating, "This film has nothing to do with the Producer/Director Shri Karan Johar Ji." However, the court found that this was insufficient to remedy the violation of the plaintiff’s personality rights. The judgment recorded: "Such disclaimer does not protect the personality right and brand name of the Plaintiff and hence is not an adequate remedy."

Also Read: Madras High Court Dismisses Petition Challenging Compulsory Retirement of Judicial Officer, Holds Higher Standards of Probity Required for Judiciary

The court concluded that the defendants' unauthorized use of the plaintiff’s name in the film’s title and script violated the plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights. It further observed that the plaintiff had successfully established that the defendants were attempting to capitalize on his goodwill for commercial benefit. The court, therefore, granted the plaintiff’s request for an injunction, restraining the defendants from using "Karan Johar" in any manner in relation to the film.

The court held: "A strong prima facie case has been made out by the Plaintiff that the Respondents have infringed the Plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights as well as use of the brand name of the Plaintiff. The balance of convenience is in favour of the Plaintiff."

Accordingly, the injunction was confirmed.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiff: Zal Andhyarujina, Senior Advocate, Rashmin Khandekar, Parag Khandhar, Pranita Saboo, Anaheeta Verma, Pratyusha Dhodda, and Shayan Bisney, Advocates instructed by DSK Legal.

For the Defendants: Ashok Saraogi, Anand Mishra, Sushil Upadhyay, Amit Dubey, Siddharth Singh, and Priti Rao, Advocates.

Case Title: Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Private Ltd. & Ors.

Neutral Citation: 2025: BHC: 17865

Case Number: INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO.17865 OF 2024 IN COMM IPR SUIT (L) NO.17863 OF 2024

Bench: Justice R.I. Chagla

[Read/Download order]