The Delhi High Court, in Independent News Service Pvt Ltd v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary & Ors, upheld the protection of personality rights against unauthorized commercial exploitation through trademark registration. The Court held that a person's name, image, and likeness constitute protectable personality rights, and that the unauthorized registration of a trademark that exploits another individual's identity amounts to infringement warranting cancellation of the impugned registration.
Background
The dispute arose from the registration of a trademark that incorporated elements of the petitioner's established identity -- including name and associated visual marks -- without authorisation. The petitioner contended that the respondent's trademark registration amounted to misappropriation of personality rights and sought cancellation of the registration along with injunctive relief against its continued use.
The jurisprudence on personality rights in India has developed primarily through Delhi High Court decisions. In Arun Jaitley v. Network Solutions Pvt Ltd (2011), the Court recognised that the right to publicity prevents unauthorized commercial use of a person's identity. More recently, in the widely noted Amitabh Bachchan (2022) and Jackie Shroff (2024) decisions, the Delhi High Court issued comprehensive orders protecting celebrity personality rights against unauthorized exploitation across digital platforms. However, the intersection of personality rights with the formal trademark registration system had received less judicial attention, making this judgment a notable addition to the evolving framework.
Key Holdings
The Delhi High Court established the following principles:
Protectable personality rights: A person's name, image, likeness, and other distinctive attributes of identity constitute protectable personality rights under Indian law. These rights exist independently of any statutory registration and are grounded in the constitutional right to dignity under Article 21.
Trademark registration as infringement: The unauthorized registration of a trademark that incorporates or exploits another person's identity amounts to an infringement of personality rights. The Trade Marks Act, 1999 does not permit the registration of marks that are obtained through misappropriation of another's identity, and such registrations are liable to cancellation.
Beyond statutory protections: The scope of personality rights extends beyond the specific provisions of the Trade Marks Act. Even where a person has not registered their name or likeness as a trademark, they retain the right to prevent others from commercially exploiting their identity through the trademark system.
Cancellation directed: The Court directed the cancellation of the impugned trademark registration, holding that it had been obtained in bad faith by exploiting the petitioner's established identity without authorisation.
Implications for Practitioners
This judgment strengthens the toolkit available to intellectual property practitioners advising clients on personality rights protection. The clear holding that trademark registrations can be challenged and cancelled on personality rights grounds provides an additional avenue of relief beyond the existing remedies of passing off and copyright infringement.
For trademark practitioners, the decision introduces an important consideration in advising clients who seek to register marks that incorporate real persons' names or likenesses. Due diligence on proposed trademark registrations should now include an assessment of whether the mark could infringe any individual's personality rights, even if that individual has not registered their own mark.
The broader significance lies in the Delhi High Court's continued expansion of personality rights as a distinct and self-standing legal doctrine. With the absence of dedicated personality rights legislation in India, these judicial decisions collectively constitute the primary source of legal protection. Practitioners should note that the Delhi High Court has emerged as the principal forum for personality rights jurisprudence, and its decisions carry significant persuasive authority across other jurisdictions.