Previous 6 / 51 Next

2023:DHC:2796 and the oldest association of online gaming companies in India. It seeks to represent the interest of various companies offering online skill based games/platforms. 15. The intervenors in both these applications seek to address legal submissions that not only have a bearing on the present case but also have wide ranging ramifications across the gaming industry, particularly for online fantasy sports. 16. Taking into account the legal issues involved in the present case as well as the public interest concerning the aforesaid issues, it was deemed appropriate to permit both the intervenors to make submissions on the legal position. 17. Both the applications are accordingly disposed of. I.A.3960/2023 (O-XXXIX R-1 & 2 of the CPC) CASE SET UP IN THE PLAINT 18. The case set up in the plaint is as under: 18.1. Plaintiff no.1 is a company incorporated in Singapore and carries on its business in India and worldwide under the trade name “Rario,” primarily through its website and related mobile applications. The business of the plaintiff no.1 includes creation of an online marketplace where third-party users sell, purchase and trade officially licensed “Digital Player Cards” of cricketers. Plaintiffs no.2 to 6 are well-known Indian cricketers. 18.2. The Digital Player Cards on the Rario Website use the name and photograph of the players and other aspects of their personalities Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 108/2023 Signing Date:26.04.2023 Page 6 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