Celebrity Identity and Commercial Rights: Legal Perspectives from India

With the rise of mass media, advertisements, and digital platforms, the image and identity of celebrities have become valuable commercial assets. India, despite having numerous celebrities whose names and likenesses often face unauthorized use, has been relatively slow in legally recognizing and protecting celebrity rights. This article explores the intersection between celebrity rights, privacy, and intellectual property laws in India. It analyzes existing legal frameworks such as trademark and copyright law, evaluates their applicability and limitations in protecting publicity rights, and highlights judicial efforts towards recognizing celebrity rights as distinct legal entitlements. Finally, the paper addresses the pressing need for clear statutory provisions to comprehensively safeguard the modern-day interests of celebrities.

INTRODUCTION

In contemporary India, celebrities enjoy not only fame but also tremendous commercial value attached to their personal identity—names, images, voices, and signatures. However, with this popularity arises the challenge of unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties. While the legal system offers some degree of protection through intellectual property rights (IPR) such as trademarks and copyrights, the protection suffers from significant gaps when it comes to “right of publicity,” a unique right that enables celebrities to control and monetize the commercial use of their persona.

The concept of publicity rights evolved from the broader “right to privacy,” itself recognized as implicit in the fundamental right to life and liberty under Article 21 of the Constitution. This paper aims to examine the current state of celebrity rights in India, the judicial landscape, and the applicability and limitations of existing IPR laws in this regard. It also discusses landmark cases and proposes a road map towards better protection for celebrity rights.

HISTORY AND EVOLUTION OF CELEBRITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

The recognition and protection of celebrity rights in India have evolved considerably, shaped primarily by judicial decisions rather than specific legislation. Traditionally, Indian law did not explicitly acknowledge personality rights as a distinct category. This began to change with landmark rulings that increasingly emphasized the control individuals have over their identity, image, and commercial exploitation.

A pivotal early case was R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu (1994), popularly known as the Auto Shankar case. Here, the Supreme Court upheld that the right to privacy, implicit in Article 21 of the Constitution, includes the ability to prevent unauthorized use of one’s name or image for publicity without consent. This case laid the foundation for the development of personality and publicity rights in India, recognizing privacy as a ‘right to be let alone.’

Subsequent cases further expanded this framework:

In ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2005), the Delhi High Court clarified that publicity rights arise from the right to privacy and are exclusive to individuals, not transferable to corporations or event organizers. This ruling emphasized that the commercial exploitation of identity is a personal right protected constitutionally under Articles 19 and 21.
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2011) formally recognized the right of publicity as the ‘right to control commercial use of human identity.’ This case outlined key elements constituting infringement, such as the validity of the claimant’s identity rights and the identifiability of the celebrity.
The Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015) case echoed these principles, ruling that celebrities who have achieved distinctive status are entitled to special protection of their personality rights. Significantly, the court held that proof of falsity or deception is not necessary to establish infringement if the celebrity is clearly identifiable.
More recently, the Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors. (2022) case marked a watershed moment by granting an injunction against unauthorized use of the actor’s voice, name, and image, enforcing an ad interim John Doe order to prevent digital infringement in scams. This precedent reflects the judiciary’s proactive stance on celebrity rights in the face of modern challenges like online misuse and identity theft.

The evolution of celebrity rights in India is thus incremental and jurisprudential, deriving from constitutional privacy and dignity rights and extending into intellectual property law. However, unlike in some common law countries where explicit statutory rights of publicity exist, India largely relies on case law, leading to inconsistencies and legal ambiguities.

CONSTITUTIONAL FOUNDATIONS OF CELEBRITY AND PERSONALITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

Though Indian law does not explicitly define personality or publicity rights in statute, the Indian Constitution offers strong protection through broader fundamental rights, especially under Article 21, which guarantees the right to life and personal liberty. This right has been expansively interpreted by the Supreme Court to include the right to privacy, thereby providing a constitutional foundation for personality rights.

Right To Privacy Under Article 21

The landmark judgment in K.S. Puttaswamy v. Union of India (2017) by a nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court declared the right to privacy a fundamental right under Article 21. Justice Chandrachud, in his leading opinion, acknowledged privacy as central to human dignity and personal autonomy. This recognition entails a person’s control over their identity—including name, image, and personal information—and how these are used or disclosed publicly.

The judgment underscores that privacy protects an individual’s “decisional privacy,” or the freedom to make certain choices about their personal identity without external interference. This includes control over commercial or public use, thus supporting emerging personality rights in India.

Rights Enshrined In Articles 14 And 19

Alongside Article 21, Article 14 ensures equality before the law, protecting all individuals’ personality rights equally, and Article 19(1)(a) guarantees the freedom of speech and expression. These rights require a balanced approach when personality rights conflict with others’ freedom of expression, such as media reporting or artistic performance.

JUDICIAL RECOGNITION OF PERSONALITY RIGHTS

The Auto Shankar case (R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, 1994) was a foundational ruling where the Supreme Court held that the right to privacy includes the right to prevent the unauthorized commercial exploitation of one’s name or image. The Court ruled that publication of personal life stories without consent could violate privacy unless it involves the public record or public interest.

The ICC Development Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises (2005) case reinforced that publicity rights emanate from privacy and human dignity entrenched under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution. The Court held that these rights are personal and protectable against unauthorized commercial use.

LANDMARK INDIAN CELEBRITY RIGHTS CASES

1. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors. (2022)

This case is groundbreaking in Indian celebrity rights law. Amitabh Bachchan filed suit against unauthorized commercial exploitation of his identity—voice, image, and name—by entities running fraudulent lottery schemes. The Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction and a John Doe order, preventing anonymous future infringements.

This ruling recognized publicity rights as enforceable, grounded in constitutional privacy and intellectual property principles. It marked the first time in India that a court preemptively blocked all unidentified infringers to protect a celebrity against widespread digital misuse, acknowledging the commercial value of a public figure’s personality.

2. Karan Johar v. India Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd. (2025)

Karan Johar won a permanent injunction against a film titled Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar that used his name and persona without consent in a way that could mislead the public into believing he endorsed it. The Bombay High Court emphasized his personality and publicity rights as proprietary rights deserving strong protection beyond trademark or copyright laws.

The court noted that even a CBFC certification or disclaimers did not exempt unauthorized use of celebrity names. This judgment reinforced that creators bear responsibility when using real persons’ names or likenesses.

3. Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors. (Sushant Singh Rajput Case, 2021)

Following the death of actor Sushant Singh Rajput, his father sought injunctions against the use of his son’s image and life story in films and media without permission, invoking personality rights.

The Delhi High Court denied the interim injunction but affirmed the complex dilemma of balancing posthumous personality rights with freedom of speech and public interest. This case highlighted challenges in extending personality rights after death, a legal area still emerging in India.

4. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store & Ors. (Jackie Shroff Case, 2024)

Jackie Shroff successfully opposed unauthorized AI-generated videos and social media content that mimicked his voice and image for commercial promotions. The Delhi High Court ruled that the celebrity’s exclusive right to control their identity’s commercial use was violated and granted a permanent injunction.

This ruling reflects courts’ responsiveness to new technological challenges such as deepfake videos, confirming the adaptability of personality rights jurisprudence.

5. Rajat Sharma v. Ashok Venkatramani (2019)

Award-winning TV journalist Rajat Sharma sued against defamatory advertisements falsely linking him to a product. The Delhi High Court held that unauthorized use causing harm to reputation infringed his publicity rights.

This case showed that personality rights also encompass protection against misleading or harmful commercial associations.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ISSUES IN INDIAN CELEBRITY RIGHTS

Trademark Law and Celebrity Names

The Trade Marks Act, 1999 enables celebrities to register their names, signatures, logos, or catchphrases as trademarks, providing some legal control over commercial use. Famous Bollywood actors such as Shahrukh Khan (trademarking “SRK”) and Akshay Kumar (“Khiladi”) have secured trademarks protecting their brand identity. Trademark law helps celebrities prevent others from using confusingly similar marks that might mislead consumers.

However, trademark protection is limited because it requires proof of a likelihood of consumer confusion or deception. It does not inherently cover all unauthorized uses of a celebrity’s identity, particularly cases where no direct confusion arises but commercial gain is unfairly reaped. Trademark law also faces challenges in addressing shared common names, as seen in Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. where no violation was found despite name usage overlap.

Copyright and Performers’ Rights

Copyright law protects original works of authorship such as literary, dramatic, or musical works, but it does not explicitly extend to a celebrity’s voice, image, or likeness. While performers in India have moral rights under the Copyright Act, these do not currently provide comprehensive or immediate protection for personality rights, particularly in the digital age.

Cases like Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi illustrate courts extending protection beyond traditional copyright for unauthorized commercial use of voice and image, highlighting a judicial readiness to recognize publicity rights as separate from copyright. Nonetheless, legislators have yet to clearly codify performers’ personality rights within copyright law.

Passing Off And Tortious Protection

Courts have also invoked passing off—a common law tort used to prevent misrepresentation in trade—for celebrity rights protection. Where trademark law falls short, passing off claims enable celebrities to seek remedies against unauthorized exploitation of their persona creating false endorsements.

The Delhi High Court’s decision in B.D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House (2010) involving singer Daler Mehndi is a landmark where passing off protected his personality rights against unauthorized merchandise use. This tort gives an equitable remedy but is fact-intensive and limited in scope regarding publicity rights.

DIGITAL CHALLENGES AND EVOLVING JURISPRUDENCE

With digital and AI technologies proliferating, celebrity rights face unprecedented challenges like deepfake videos, voice synthesis, and online impersonation. Cases involving AI-generated content violating Jackie Shroff’s rights signal the need for expanding legal coverage.

While the Indian IP regime currently lacks dedicated celebrity rights laws, increasing judicial interventions suggest a shift towards broader recognition and future legislative reform to accommodate the complexities of modern digital identity rights.

COMPARATIVE INTERNATIONAL PERSPECTIVES ON CELEBRITY RIGHTS

United States

The United States leads in recognizing and protecting the right of publicity as a distinct and transferable property right, often codified in state statutes. It protects celebrities from unauthorized commercial use of their identity and enables them to license or exploit these rights economically. Federal laws such as the Lanham Act offer remedies against false endorsement or misleading commercial use.

Notable features include:

Broad scope covering name, image, voice, signature, and other attributes of personality.
Protection is generally transferable and inheritable.
Strong legal remedies such as injunctions, damages, and criminal penalties.
Growing judicial recognition of challenges posed by digital media and AI.

United Kingdom

In the UK, explicit publicity rights are not recognized as a separate legal concept. Instead, celebrities rely on a patchwork of protections:

Copyright law protects original works like photographs but not personality rights per se.
Passing off and malicious falsehood torts give limited recourse against unauthorized use that misleads consumers.
Strong advertising codes self-regulate celebrity endorsements but lack statutory enforceability.
Courts emphasize balance between commercial interests, freedom of expression, and public interest.

European Union

The EU has no harmonized right of publicity, but member states provide various protections:

Germany, France, and other countries offer personality rights rooted in privacy/dignity concepts, often codified in civil law.
Copyright law protects celebrity images as artistic works.
EU data protection rules like the GDPR also impact personal data usage and consent.
Some civil law jurisdictions allow injunctive relief and monetary damages for unauthorized use.

India’s Position

India, in contrast, has yet to enact dedicated legislation protecting celebrity personality rights. Reliance on constitutional privacy rights and IP law leaves gaps in clarity and enforcement.

Recent judicial decisions increasingly acknowledge a personality/publicity right concept but lack the comprehensive statutory framework present in the US or parts of Europe.

Internationally, the US model stands out for clear statutory recognition and expansive protection of celebrity rights as economic property. The UK exemplifies a cautious, case-by-case approach with limited statutory supplements. The EU offers a mixed civil law-data protection framework.

India’s development is ongoing, seeking to balance constitutional rights, freedom of expression, and commercial interests under existing legal structures.

LEGISLATIVE REFORM AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR CELEBRITY RIGHTS IN INDIA

India currently lacks a comprehensive statutory framework dedicated exclusively to celebrity personality and publicity rights. Protection is pieced together from constitutional privacy rights, trademark and copyright laws, tort law, and judicial precedents. This fragmented legal landscape creates uncertainty and limits effective enforcement, especially in the contemporary digital environment where unauthorized use and commercial exploitation of celebrity personas have become rampant.

Need for a Dedicated Celebrity Rights Protection Act

To address growing complexities, there is a pressing need for a well-defined celebrity rights act that explicitly codifies personality and publicity rights as proprietary interests. Such legislation should include:

Clear definitions of personality and publicity rights, encompassing name, image, voice, signature, and other identifying traits.
Recognition of celebrity rights as transferable and inheritable property, allowing control and commercial licensing during and after life.
Regulatory provisions targeting emerging technologies including AI-generated content (deepfakes), cybersquatting, NFTs, and unauthorized merchandising.
Enforcement mechanisms with statutory injunctions, damages, and criminal penalties for infringement to deter misuse effectively.
Balancing personality rights with freedom of expression and media, ensuring legitimate journalism, artistic expression, and public interest are not unduly hampered.
Fair compensation principles for celebrities whose identity is commercially exploited.
Posthumous protection to safeguard celebrity legacies and prevent exploitation of deceased personalities beyond death.

Amendments to Existing IP Laws

Revising and harmonizing existing laws can complement dedicated legislation:

The Trade Marks Act should explicitly recognize personal names, social media handles, and catchphrases as protectable marks without stringent confusion requirements.
The Copyright Act should expand performers’ rights to protective personality elements explicitly, including moral rights over images and voices.
Specific provisions addressing digital impersonation and synthetic media misuse must be integrated into IP laws.

International Harmonization and Best Practices

India could benefit from adopting principles and mechanisms from leading jurisdictions, particularly:

The US model of clearly defined and enforceable right of publicity, with licensing and posthumous rights.
The UK’s balanced approach leveraging passing off and defamation laws alongside media regulatory codes.
EU’s incorporation of privacy, data protection, and personality rights within civil law frameworks.

Doing so would elevate India’s IP regime to cope with digital commercialization and protect celebrity branding adequately.

Strengthening Industry and Contractual Practices

Legal reforms should be supplemented by industry self-regulation and contractual safeguards:

Celebrities and brands should adopt robust endorsement agreements clearly defining permissible use and consent.
Advertising codes like those from the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) should be strengthened and made more effective.
Industry education efforts must raise awareness about legal rights and remedies among celebrities, agents, and creators.

Conclusion

Celebrity rights in India represent a crucial intersection of privacy, dignity, and intellectual property rights adapted to modern commercial realities. Despite the slow development of statutory law, judicial decisions have progressively recognized publicity rights as enforceable claims derived primarily from the constitutional right to privacy and personal dignity.

Existing trademark and copyright laws offer partial but incomplete protection, reflecting significant gaps amid rapid technological and social changes. The landmark Amitabh Bachchan case marks a hopeful turning point by affirming the economic and moral worth of celebrity personality rights.

There is a clear and urgent need for dedicated legislative intervention in India to codify and expand the protection of celebrity rights, aligning them with constitutional guarantees and global best practices. Stronger laws and enforcement will ensure that celebrities can control, protect, and benefit from their identities in the digital age, preserving their fundamental rights and commercial interests.

References

R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632: AIR 1995 SC 264.
ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, 2005 (30) PTC 253 (Del).
Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 (50) PTC 486 (Del).
Sourav Ganguly v. Tata Tea Ltd., CS no. 361 of 1997.
Gautam Gambhir v. D.A.P & Co. & Anr., CS(COMM) 395/2017.
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors., CS(COMM) 819/2022.
Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, Madras High Court, 2015.
Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi & Ors., Delhi High Court, 2021.
Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store & Ors., Delhi High Court, 2024.
Rajat Sharma v. Ashok Venkatramani, Delhi High Court, 2019.
Daler Mehndi v. Baby Gift House, Delhi High Court, 2010.
Mirandah, “India: Preserving Celebrity Rights Through Intellectual Property Rights,” 2025.
Neeti Niyaman, “Personality Rights in India: Laws & Key Cases,” 2025.
Legal Bites, “Protection of Celebrity/Personality Rights in India,” 2025.
Bar & Bench, “Personality rights from Amitabh Bachchan to Sushant Singh,” 2023.
Lakshmishri, “Personality Rights: Protection under IP Laws,” 2025.
Manupatra, “Celebrity Rights: Protection under IP Laws,” 2011.
Kankrishme, “Bombay High Court Upholds Karan Johar’s Personality Rights,” 2025.