Personality rights: Priority or privilege? Mapping an evolving judicial framework

In a recent judgment by the Delhi High Court, YouTuber Bhuvan Bam was unable to obtain relief for a violation of his personality rights during the first hearing. The judge observed that it was too early to determine whether an infringement had occurred and to grant an injunction at this stage.

The initial hearing provides only a limited window to assess any violation of personality rights; therefore, relief for infringement was not granted. However, the court did direct the removal of images and voice clips circulating on social media without his consent.

Bhuvan Bam’s lawyer had requested an injunction to stop the unauthorized sale of his merchandise, arguing that it constituted an infringement of his personality and publicity rights, as well as a violation of a registered trademark jointly owned by BB Vines. Since the court could not make a determination on personality rights infringement at the first hearing, no relief was granted on that front.

Earlier, the High Court has protected the personality rights of many public figures, the most recent being Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister and actor Pawan Kalyan, where the Court restrained several defendants from unauthorized use of his name, image, voice, and likeness for monetary gain.

We have observed certain precedents where, in cases with clear evidence of unauthorized commercial use or the potential for immediate, irreparable harm, personality rights have been recognized, and orders have been granted. However, this practice is discretionary and not guaranteed in every case. It is more common in high-profile matters, such as those involving film actors like Amitabh Bachchan, Anil Kapoor, and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who have obtained recognition of their personality rights in the Delhi and Chennai High Courts and secured rapid injunctions based on economic or reputational damage.

We can also observe that, in the case of Ajay Devgn, the Delhi High Court noted that individuals seeking the removal of defamatory or unauthorized content should first approach social media intermediaries under the 2021 IT Rules before seeking injunctions from the Court. This is because social media intermediaries are cooperating in taking down misleading and defamatory content that violates personality rights.

In conclusion, just as in trademark law—where a well-known trademark is clearly defined by law and case law allows for injunctions against any defendant or third party across multiple classes—there needs to be a clear understanding of who qualifies as a well-known personality. It is also essential to determine what information, evidence, and facts must be considered when granting immediate relief for violations of personality rights.

Going forward, it will be important to observe whether relief for personality rights evolves based on privileges granted to a few high-profile cases or on a broader priority basis for all individuals whose reputations are at risk and who make a meaningful impact on society.

(Author is CEO, Resolute IP Services LLP & Founder, IPRAS)