Previous 4 / 51 Next

2023:DHC:2796 requires skill, judgment and discretion and would constitute a game of skill and would not amount to gambling. 4. In this background, I shall now proceed to decide the application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) as well as the applications filed on behalf of the intervenors seeking to address submissions on the legal issues involved in the present case. PROCEEDINGS IN THE SUIT 5. The present suit, accompanied by an application for grant of interim injunction and an application seeking exemption from serving the defendants, was first listed before the Court on 28th February, 2023. 6. Counsel for the defendants, on seeing the matter in the cause list, appeared and accepted notice on behalf of the defendants. 7. Intervention applications in the present suit were filed on 6th April, 2023. 8. Replies to the application for grant of interim injunction have been filed on behalf of the defendants no.1 and 2. 9. Submissions were heard on 28th February, 2023, 6th March, 2023, 7th March, 2023, 14th March, 2023, 16th March, 2023, 17th March, 2023, 20th March, 2023, 21st March, 2023 and 24th March, 2023, when judgment was reserved in the present applications. I.A. 4515/2023 (R-25 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules) and I.A. 4443/2023 (O-I R-8A of the CPC) 10. These applications have been filed under Order I Rule 8A of the CPC, read with Rule 25 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 108/2023 Signing Date:26.04.2023 Page 4 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, Order, or Motion Denied/Vacated

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.

Related Caselaw (self)

India

Source URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

APC
CIPIT

Date Updated: Oct 29, 2023

Primary Documents

Digital Collectibles v Galactus.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Digital Collectibles v Galactus

Primary Documents

Notifications