2023:DHC:2796 SUBMISSIONS ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS 22. The following submissions have been made on behalf of the plaintiffs: 22.1. Indian law recognizes the right of personality/right of publicity. The attempt of the defendants to characterize the right of personality under Indian law as being limited to cases of unauthorized endorsement is completely incorrect. The judgment in D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House and Ors., MANU/DE/2043/2010 recognizes separate torts of ‘infringement of right to publicity’ and ‘false endorsement leading to passing off’. The tort of infringement of right to publicity requires identifiability and includes a broad category of acts of unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s persona/attributes for commercial gain. Further, in Titan Industries v. M/s. Ram Kumar Jewellers, (2012) 50 PTC 486, the Court held that the right of publicity extends beyond the traditional limits of false advertising laws. 22.2. Publicity rights are recognized in India as a facet of the right to privacy. Reliance in this regard is placed on the concurring judgment of Kaul, J. in the judgment of K. S.Puttaswamy and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors., (2017) 10 SCC 1. 22.3. On the aspect of right of publicity, reliance has also been placed on judgments of courts in the United States of America [hereinafter “U.S.”], viz. Keller v. Elec. Arts Inc. (In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig.), 724 F.3d 1268, Haelan Labs., Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866, Motschenbacher v. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:AMIT BANSAL CS(COMM) 108/2023 Signing Date:26.04.2023 Page 13 of 51 13:09:16