Previous 1 / 51 Next

2023:DHC:2796 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI Judgment Reserved on : 24th March, 2023 Judgment Delivered on : 26th April, 2023 % + CS(COMM) 108/2023 DIGITAL COLLECTIBLES PTE LTD AND ORS. ..... Plaintiffs Through: Mr.Sandeep Sethi and Mr.Rajshekhar Rao, Senior Advocates with Ms.Shwetasree Majumder, Mr.Aditya Verma, Mr.Prithvi Singh, Mr.Rohan Krishna Seth, Ms.Parkhi Rai and Mr.Rigved Prasad, Advocates. versus GALACTUS FUNWARE TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITED AND ANR. ..... Defendants Through: Mr.Dayan Krishnan, Sr. Advocate with Ms.Raj Latha Kotni, Mr.Anuridh Ramanathan and Mr.Anoop George, Advocates for D-1. Mr.Amit Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Maanav Kumar, Ms. Tara Narula, Ms. Nupur, Ms. Bijaharini G., Mr.Rishab Sharma and Mr.Saksham Dhingra, Advocates for D-2. Mr.Akhil Sibal, Senior Advocate with Mr.Aditya Gupta, Ms.Kruttika Vijay, Mr.Dhruv Garg, Mr.Utkarsh Srivastava, Mr.Rahul Bajaj, Mr.Sauhard Alung and Ms.Sanya Kumar, Advocates for All India Gaming Federation/Intervener. Ms.Shilpa Gamnani and Mr.Nishtha Chaturvedi, Advocates for Intervener in I.A.4443/2023 Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 108/2023 Signing Date:26.04.2023 Page 1 of 51 13:09:16

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Digital Collectibles v Galactus

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: Apr 26, 2023

Case Status: In progress

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Injunction or Order Denied
Injunction or Order Denied/Vacated
Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Digital Rights
Intellectual Property
Privacy
Privacy, Data Protection and Retention

Judicial Body: First Instance Court

Court Name: High Court of Delhi

Case Number: CS(COMM) 108/2023

Case Summary: The High Court of Delhi delivered a judgment in a case involving Digital Collectibles, a Singapore-based company operating under the brand “Rario,” and Galactus Funware Technology, trading as “Mobile Premier League” (MPL). The central issue revolved around the use of sportspersons’ names and images to create Digital Player Cards and whether this constituted a violation of the plaintiff’s right to publicity or fell within the defendants’ freedom of expression. The Court extensively analyzed both foreign and Indian jurisprudence on the right of publicity, highlighting that publicly accessible information about celebrities or sportspersons, including names and performance data, could not be exclusively licensed and was not subject to infringement claims. Additionally, the Court emphasized the protection of transformative and creative elements in artworks, concluding that the defendant’s use of such elements was within the purview of freedom of speech and expression. The Court also noted that the trading of Digital Player Cards was influenced by various factors, not solely dependent on player personas. Ultimately, the Court declined to grant an interim injunction against the defendants, upholding the primacy of freedom of speech and expression in this context.

Case Significance: This ruling expands the freedom of expression by upholding the principle that using celebrity names, images, and information for purposes such as parody, satire, art, scholarship, music, academics, news, and similar expressions was permissible under the right of freedom of speech and expression guaranteed by Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. The ruling, stemming from a case involving the use of sportspersons’ names and images in Digital Player Cards, drew from both U.S. and Indian jurisprudence. It highlighted the protection of publicly available information, the importance of creative elements in expression, the permissibility of using player names and images for descriptive purposes, and the need to balance rights. Ultimately, the Court held that the use of celebrity names and images for various purposes fell within the realm of freedom of speech and expression and did not infringe upon the right of publicity. This ruling reinforces and broadens the boundaries of freedom of speech in India.

The decision establishes a binding or persuasive precedent within its jurisdiction.

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Related Caselaw (self)

India

Collection

APC
CIPIT

Date Updated: Oct 29, 2023

Primary Documents

Digital Collectibles v Galactus.pdf
english
Download View