Delhi HC restrains entities from using actor Jackie Shroff's name, voice without permission
New Delhi (PTI): The Delhi High Court has restrained various entities from using actor Jackie Shroff's name, including sobriquets "Jackie" and "Jaggu Dadda", voice and images for commercial purposes without permission.
Justice Sanjeev Narula, in an interim order dated May 15, said the entities selling wallpapers, T-shirts and posters, etc. on e-commerce websites and operating an artificial intelligence (AI) chatbot platform were prima facie acting in violation of the actor's personality and publicity rights by exploiting and misappropriating his attributes.
The judge also passed the direction against two content creators who published videos of Shroff with "extremely profane words and abuses".
The court said Shroff is a celebrity and this status inherently grants him certain rights over his personality and associated attributes.
"The plaintiff has established a prima facie case for grant of an ex-parte injunction. Balance of convenience lies in his favour and against defendants no. 3-4, 6-7, 13 and 14. If an injunction is not granted in the present case, it will lead to irreparable loss/harm to the Plaintiff, not only financially but also with his right to live with dignity," the court observed.
"It becomes evident that the alleged activities of some of the defendants have, on a prima facie basis, resulted in commercial benefits through the unauthorised exploitation of the plaintiff's personality. Such defendants have utilised the plaintiff's name, image, voice, and other unique characteristics without permission, thereby infringing on his personality and publicity rights," it said.
The court issued notice to certain other entities with respect to alleged violation of his rights, including a YouTube content creator hosting an allegedly derogatory video and a restaurant owner using the registered trademark "Bhidu" for his outlet.
With respect to the video, the court said the actor's portrayal did not introduce any falsehoods. Rather, it embellished his existing public perception as being formidable and it would therefore like to hear the YouTuber before passing any order.
"The format, akin to a meme, spoof, or parody, is part of a burgeoning comedic genre that leverages the cultural resonance of public figures to create engaging content. YouTubers are a growing community, and the substantial viewership of these videos translates into significant revenue for the creators, underscoring that such content is not merely entertainment but also a vital source of livelihood for a considerable segment, particularly, the youth," the court stated.
"Restricting such creative expressions by enjoining defendant no. 5 from producing similar videos or blocking these videos might have far-reaching consequences for this vibrant community. 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 court opined.
The court listed the matter for further hearing on October 15 and directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary directions to the telecom service providers and internet service providers to block the infringing URLs.
Some defendants said they had taken down the allegedly offending merchandise and the court held that they would be bound by the undertaking.
Shroff had approached the high court earlier this month against the unlicensed use of his name and personality attributes by several entities for commercial gain.
His counsel objected to the "misuse" of his personality and publicity rights through the sale of merchandise and wallpapers as well as "insulting" memes and GIFs and the use of AI.
He also alleged infringement of his trademark rights on Marathi slang "bhidu".
Shroff, who was represented by lawyer Pravin Anand, has contended that individuals cannot be allowed to mislead consumers into buying products thinking they are endorsed by the actor who has worked in over 200 films.
In support of his case, Shroff's counsel had relied on orders passed by the high court in similar lawsuits by actors Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
2020 Delhi riots: Court orders framing of charges against 25 accused in head constable death case
New Delhi (PTI): A court here has ordered framing of several charges, including murder, arson and dacoity, against 25 accused in a 2020 northeast Delhi rioting case pertaining to the assault of a police team that left head constable Ratan Lal dead.
Additional Sessions Judge Pulastya Pramachala also said the Constitution does not vest any right to a protester to use violence, assault, murder or damage any property. Therefore, the argument that the accused were exercising their constitutional rights, is totally misconceived, the court said.
The court was hearing the case against 27 people accused of being a part of a riotous mob that attacked and "brutally assaulted" a police team at the Chand Bagh protest site when officials tried to stop them from blocking the main Wazirabad road on February 24, 2020.
In its 115-page order passed on November 22, the court noted that Lal's postmortem report showed a firearm wound and 21 other external injuries.
"This firearm wound as well as five other wounds were found sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature. Thus, the death of HC Ratan Lal took place because of the assault and gunfire shot received in the incident," the court said.
Lal, who was suffering from mild fever and was advised to rest by his colleagues, joined duty in view of the grave tension in the area under Dayalpur police station limits.
He helped the then DCP Shahdara DCP Amit Sharma and ACP Gokalpuri Anuj Kumar pacify a crowd and control it as the situation started heating up, the prosecution said.
Lal succumbed to 24 injuries he received while shielding officers when a riotous mob started attacking them.
Apart from Lal, the then DCP and ACP also sustained serious injuries, while 50 other policemen were also among the injured.
The court said on the day of the incident the protestors had a "clear objective" of resorting to violence so that they could show their strength to the government.
"The protesters not only gathered to show protest against CAA/NRC, rather they came well equipped with weapons with a mindset to use the same against the police force," it said, adding the riotous mob had the objective to "brutally" beat or assault the police officials wherever possible and also aimed to commit vandalism, loot and arson.
The court noted that a few days before the incident, a meeting was held, where it was decided to block the road and resort to violence when stopped by police.
"After the attempt to block main Wazirabad road on February 23, 2020, was neutralised by police, the emphasis on joining the protest in large numbers on February 24 and carrying weapons, shows that the organisers and speakers of the protest had framed a clear-cut mindset to attack police force," the court said, adding it was a preplanned criminal conspiracy.
"The preparations made to keep weapons in the tent of protest, or gathering of protesters equipped with different weapons, could not be a matter of coincidence. Moreover, keeping women and juveniles in the front to start pelting stones upon police, also appears to be a well-thought strategy," ASJ Pramachala said.
Noting the statements of the witnesses, the judge said there was a "persistent abetment" to incite violence by the organisers and speakers of the protest.
Ordering framing of charges of criminal conspiracy against 11 organisers and speakers of the anti-CAA/NRC meeting, the court said there was "prima facie" evidence against them.
The organisers were Mohammed Salim Khan, Saleem Malik, Mohammed Jalaluddin alias Guddu Bhai, Shahnawaz, Furkan, Mohammed Ayub, Mohammed Yunus, Athar Khan, Tabassum, Mohammed Ayaz and his brother Khalid.
The court also ordered framing charges against 14 other accused under various Indian Penal Code (IPC) sections for attacking the police team and rioting.
These include the provisions for murder, attempt to murder, attempt to commit culpable homicide, mischief by fire or explosive substance, causing grievous hurt to a public servant, committing rioting when armed with a deadly weapon, dacoity, unlawful assembly and sections of the Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act.
The 14 accused are Mohammed Sadiq, Suvaleen, Nasir, Arif, Mohammed Danish, Ibrahim, Badrul Hasan, Shadab Ahmed, Imran Ansari, Ravish Fatima, Adil, Sameer, Mohammed Mansur and Irshad Ali.
The matter has been posted on December 3 for formal framing of charges.
During the proceedings, the court also refused to entertain the argument of a defence counsel that his client Saleem Malik could not be prosecuted in the case as he was already being prosecuted in the larger conspiracy case.
It said, "Just because the accused is also named in the case of the larger conspiracy, he does not get exemption from prosecution in this case."
The judge, meanwhile, discharged one Mohammed Wasim alias Bablu, saying his identity as a part of the riotous mob was not established.
"Merely based on call detail records (CDRs) and appearance of this accused in some CCTV footages, which pertained to prior in time than the incident in question, I do not find sufficient evidence to presume that it was Wasim, who had thrown petrol bomb or that he was present in the mob."
The court also discharged another accused Sahid alias Shahbaz from whom a robbed pistol of a police official was recovered, saying he could be only charged under IPC section 412 (dishonestly receiving property stolen in the commission of a dacoity).
It said, "This accused cannot be presumed to be part of rioters, merely based on recovery of the robbed pistol. He is discharged for remaining charges."
The northeast Delhi riots, which started on February 24, 2020 and continued till February 26, 2020, resulted in the death of more than 50 people and lef over 200 people injured.
