Earlier this month, veteran actor Jackie Shroff’s plea for the protection of his persona was presented in the Delhi High Court. Following the actor’s plea, the court issued an ad-interim injunction in favor of the star, safeguarding his personality rights against infringement.

The Bollywood star approached the high court to shield his publicity rights from certain entities exploiting them for commercial gains. The lawsuit aimed to restrain said entities from using the actor’s name, sobriquets ‘Jaggu Dadda’ and ‘Jackie,’ voice, photographs, and his trademarked words ‘bhidu’ and ‘bhidu ka khopcha’ without his consent. His plea sought the injunction of entities engaging in unauthorized usage of Shroff’s personality attributes and public image, thereby infringing his publicity and personality rights. His lawyer, advocate Pravin Anand, emphasized that such actions misled the public by implying the actor’s association and endorsement of the alleged products and services.

Also Read: Jackie Shroff protects ‘Bhidu’ persona in legal battle

A single bench judge, Justice Sanjeev Narula, claimed that defendant entities selling merchandise on e-commerce platforms and operating AI-generated chatbots were prima facie violating Shroff’s personality and publicity rights by exploiting and misusing the plaintiff’s status and public image. The court stated, “Such defendants have utilized the plaintiff’s name, image, voice, and other unique characteristics without permission, thereby infringing on his personality and publicity rights.”

Furthermore, the court issued notices to certain other defendant entities for alleged violations of Shroff’s rights, including gif-making platforms, a YouTuber for hosting an allegedly derogatory video, and a restaurant using the registered trademark “Bhidu” for its joint.

However, the court refused to take down a YouTube video titled, ‘Jackie Shroff is Savage, Jackie Shroff Thug Life.’ The video comprises snippets of the actor’s public interviews with the addition of ‘Thug Life’ in the caption. The court cited the video as a form of artistic expression and stated that restricting it would have far-reaching consequences. It said, “More critically, it could set a precedent that stifles freedom of expression, potentially deterring the public from exercising their right to free speech due to fear of legal repercussions.”

The next hearing for the case will be on October 15.

Jackie Shroff’s case isn’t the first of its nature. Preceding cases involving Anil Kapoor and Amitabh Bachchan also sought injunctions to safeguard their personality and image against unauthorized usage.