Previous 7 / 68 Next

(ii) Pass an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their directors, principal officers , successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertiser or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using plaintiff son‘s name/caricature/lifestyle or likeness in their forthcoming project/films in any manner whatsoever amounting to infiltration of personality rights by such unauthorized use; (iii) Pass an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertiser or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using plaintiff son‘s name/caricature/lifestyle or likeness in their forthcoming project/films in any manner whatsoever amounting so as to misrepresent and to cause deception in minds of public leading to passing off; (iv) Pass an order and decree of permanent injunction restraining the Defendants by themselves, their directors, principal officers, successors-in-business, assigns, servants, agents, distributors, advertiser or anyone claiming through them from in any manner using plaintiff son‘s name/caricature/lifestyle or likeness in their forthcoming project/films in any manner whatsoever violation right to fair trial of Plaintiff under Article 21 of Indian Constitution; (v) Pass an order and decree of mandatory injunction to remove all references /press release /videos /posters / advertisement /content /publicity material containing the plaintiff son‘s name /image /caricature /lifestyle /likeness from all websites, television channel, newspapers, social media and or other modes of advertisements and promotion in any other mode of electronic or print media in respect of forthcoming ventures misappropriating personality of plaintiff‘s son; Signature Not Verified Signed By:KAMLA CS(COMM) RAWAT Signing Date:12.07.2023 10:10:24 (vi) Pass an order and decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining Defendant No. 9 from using the name of the late actor Sh. Sushant Singh, name / image /caricature/lifestyle/likeness for any association of person, academy, institution, in any form for any purpose without consent of Plaintiff and direct them to remove all references/press release / videos /posters/ advertisement /content/ publicity material from all websites, television channel, newspapers, social media and or other modes of 187/2021 Page 7 of 68

Select target paragraph3

● ● ●

Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi

Case Law

Country

India

Country Location

Latitude: 23.078537445745496

Longitude: 78.60363571015989

Country Location (linked Case Law): India

Decision Date: 11 de jul. de 2023

Case Status: Closed

Case Outcome (Procedural)

Inadmissible
Motion Denied
Motion Granted/Motion Denied

Case Outcome (Disposition)

Judgment in Favor of Defendant

Keywords

Defamation / Reputation
Digital Rights
Intellectual Property
Privacy, Data Protection and Retention
Public Interest

Judicial Body: Appellate Court

Court Name: The High Court of Delhi

Case Number: CS (COMM) 187/2021

Case Summary: The High Court of Delhi ruled that the father of a deceased actor could not seek to restrain the broadcast of a film on the actor’s life. After his son died and he learned that a film was being made, the father brought various applications to restrain the use of his son’s name, caricature or lifestyle in any projects or films without his prior permission on the grounds that doing so would infringe his son’s personality rights. The Court held that the rights to privacy, publicity, and personality were not inheritable and ceased to exist upon the actor’s death and therefore, his father could not pursue them. The Court noted that the information used in the disputed film was derived from publicly available sources in the media, and so the filmmakers had not violated any rights using this information as it had been unchallenged when originally published. The Court held that any injunction about distribution of the film would infringe the filmmakers’ rights to freedom of expression.

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

The Court balanced privacy rights with freedom of expression and information dissemination by highlighting the importance of an individual’s right to privacy and that using a person’s name, likeness, or life story without their consent can violate this right, but also that an individual’s right to privacy doesn’t extend to prevent the publication or dissemination of information derived from public records or publicly available sources and that rights to privacy, publicity, and personality rights, are not inheritable.

Related Caselaw (self)

India

Source Name and URL: Global Freedom of Expression

Collection

CIPIT
Columbia

Date Updated: 30 de jan. de 2024

Primary Documents

Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi.pdf
English
Download View

CYRILLA: Global Digital Rights Law

Select target paragraph3

Krishna Kishore Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi

Primary Documents

Notifications