Sourav Ganguly & Anr. vs Masha Sajdeh & Ors.
- Court
- Delhi High Court
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Judgment Reserved on: 02.11.2026
% Judgment Delivered on: 06.11.2026
# CNR No. DLHC010511692026
+ CS(COMM) 1156/2026
SOURAV GANGULY & ANR. .....Plaintiffs
versus
MASHA SAJDEH & ORS. .....Defendants
Advocates who appeared in this case
For the Plaintiffs : Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate
with Ms. Jaya Goyal, Ms. Manmeet
Kaur, Ms. Gitika Agarwal, Mr. Arjun
Agarwal and Mr. K. K. Makhija,
Advocates.
For Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 : Mr. Sourav Kirpal, Senior Advocate
with Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Dhruv
Anand, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Mr.
Dhananjay Khanna, Ms. Bhavya
Verma, Mr. Sanjeevi Seshadri, Ms.
Sakshi Dube, Ms. Khushi Aggarwal,
Ms. Unnati Gambani and Ms. Arya,
Advocates for D-1 to D-6.
Mr. Shivam Goel, Ms. Ramya S. Goel,
Ms. Sanya Sharma and Ms. Ishika
Kanyal, Advocates for D-7.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 1 of 41
JUDGMENT
TEJAS KARIA, J
I.A. 29441/2026 (U/O XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC)
INTRODUCTION
1. This Judgment decides the present Application under Order XXXIX
Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“ CPC ”), whereby the
Plaintiffs seek an ad-interim injunction restraining Defendant Nos. 1 to 6
from exhibiting, screening, communicating to the public, broadcasting or
streaming the cinematograph film titled ‘ Doosra ’ (“ Impugned Film ”)
through theatrical, non-theatrical, television, satellite, digital, online,
ancillary or any other means, mode or medium, pending final disposal of the
Suit.
2. The present Suit has been instituted to protect the personality,
publicity, identity, persona, reputation and goodwill rights of Plaintiff No. 1
against their alleged unauthorised commercial appropriation in connection
with the Impugned Film, as well as the contractual rights acquired by
Plaintiff No. 2 from Plaintiff No. 1 in respect of the production and
exploitation of the cinematograph film titled ‘ Dada-The Sourav Ganguly
Story ’ (“ Biopic ”), based on the life story, personal and professional journey,
experiences and achievements of Plaintiff No. 1.
3. Plaintiff No. 1 is a former Captain of the Indian National Cricket
Team and former President of the Board of Control for Cricket in India
(“ BCCI ”). Plaintiff No. 2 is engaged in the business of development,
production and exploitation of cinematograph films and other audio-visual
content.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 2 of 41
4. Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 and 6 are associated with the production of the
Impugned Film. Defendant No. 5 is the Director of the Impugned Film, and
Defendant No. 7 is the identified distributor of the Impugned Film.
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
5. In June 2017, Defendant No. 1’s husband met Plaintiff No. 1
allegedly to discuss the Impugned Film. On 10.07.2017, Defendant No. 1’s
husband sent an email to Plaintiff No. 1 stating that he was planning to visit
India to finalise plans for the Impugned Film and discuss the inputs of
Plaintiff No. 1 in this regard.
6. In February 2018, Defendant No. 1 and her husband again approached
Plaintiff No. 1 and discussed the possibility of interviewing Plaintiff No. 1
for the Impugned Film.
7. Vide email dated 04.05.2018 addressed to Mr. Partha Rudra, Plaintiff
No. 1’s manager (“ Mr. Rudra ”), with Plaintiff No. 1 marked in copy,
Defendant No. 1 sought suggestions regarding the availability of Plaintiff
No. 1 for an interview and further mentioned the presence of other public
figures to be interviewed for the Impugned Film.
8. On 06.06.2018, Defendant No. 1 addressed an email to Mr. Rudra to
discuss the availability of Plaintiff No. 1 for an interview.
9. Vide email dated 06.06.2018, Mr. Rudra responded to the aforesaid
communication dated 06.06.2018 stating as under:
“… I did have a chat with Mr. Ganguly once i had a telephonic
conversation with you regarding the project. At that point of time i
did mention to you that there was a discussion going on about his
biopic and so the biggest challenge which came to the forefront was,
how can a biopic and a documentary on the same person go hand in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 3 of 41
hand? I also discussed the same with Mr. Ganguly and since then
the matter has rested there… ”
10. Thereafter, Defendant No. 1 addressed an email dated 16.06.2018 to
Mr. Rudra stating that the Impugned Film is about India and how the nation
has undergone a dramatic change in mindset, that several other personalities
in the areas of sports, business, politics and entertainment are also being
interviewed in this regard, and that the nature, scope and purpose of the
Impugned Film is “ very different from a biopic that would be based on ”
Plaintiff No. 1’s autobiography.
11. On 28.06.2018, Defendant No. 1 addressed an email to Mr. Rudra,
requesting confirmation regarding the availability of Plaintiff No. 1 for an
interview.
12. On 01.07.2018, Defendant No. 1’s husband informed Plaintiff No. 1
that they had spent considerable money organizing interviews to align with
Plaintiff No. 1’s travel in England and availability of other interviewees.
13. Plaintiff No. 1 responded to the communication dated 01.07.2018 by a
text message on the same date, stating that Plaintiff No. 1 was struggling to
find time for the interviews but would revert to Defendant No. 1’s husband
with a different date.
14. Vide communication dated 27.06.2019 addressed to Plaintiff No. 1,
Defendant No. 1’s husband again stated that he was working on a film that
tells the story of how Cricket changed India, seen through the eyes of a
young girl and that the said film covers the period from 1991-2002
culminating in the 2002 NatWest Final.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 4 of 41
15. In June 2019, Defendant No. 1’s husband informed Plaintiff No. 1
about the proposed release of the promotional video of the Impugned Film
ahead of the ‘ India versus England World Cup ’ match.
16. Subsequently, the promotional video of the Impugned Film was
released in June 2019 (“ Teaser ”). In the meanwhile, Defendant No. 1
entered into various agreements for acquiring licensed archival footage of
cricket matches and events including a No Objection Certificate from MS
Productions74 for the use of six seconds of footage from the documentary
titled ‘ The Warrior Prince ’, an International Cricket Council (“ ICC ”)
Footage Licence Agreement dated 08.06.2020 for footage from the ICC
events namely, the ICC Cricket World Cup 1999, ICC Knock Out 2000 and
ICC Champions Trophy 2002, a Licence Agreement dated 03.07.2020 with
Lobster Films, and a Licence Agreement dated 08.01.2021 with New Delhi
Television Limited for the footage specified in Annexure A to the said
Agreement.
17. Plaintiff Nos. 1 and 2 entered into an agreement dated 05.08.2021
(“ Life Rights Agreement ”) in relation to the production and exploitation of
audio-visual content based on the life, personal and professional journey,
experiences and achievements of Plaintiff No. 1, namely, the Biopic. On
09.09.2021, Plaintiff No. 1 announced on Twitter that Plaintiff No. 2 would
produce the Biopic.
18. Defendant No. 1 further entered into various agreements for acquiring
licensed archival footage of cricket matches and events, including a Clip
Licence Agreement dated 29.10.2021 for the archival footage of the 2002
NatWest Final between England and India, a Clip Licence Agreement dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 5 of 41
10.08.2026, Footage Licence Agreement dated 10.08.2026 with the BCCI
for licensing of archival footage of cricket matches and events detailed in
Schedule 1 of the said Agreement and AP Archive Agreement dated
28.08.2026.
19. On 08.07.2026, Plaintiff No. 1 released the first-look poster of the
Biopic with proposed release date of the Biopic being 14.05.2027.
20. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 released the official trailer of the Impugned
Film on 12.10.2026 (“ Trailer ”). The Impugned Film was certified for public
exhibition by the Central Board of Film Certification (“ CBFC ”) on
15.10.2026.
21. The Plaintiffs issued a Legal Notice dated 17.10.2026 (“ Legal
Notice ”) to Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 asking Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to cease and
desist from releasing the Impugned Film.
22. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 responded to the Legal Notice vide Replies
dated 19.10.2026 and 20.10.2026 stating that the making, subject matter and
promotional material of the Impugned Film had been in the public domain
since 2019, that Plaintiff No. 1 had, at all times, even prior to the official
announcement of the Impugned Film, been aware of and consulted over the
process and development of the Impugned Film and that the Legal Notice is
aimed at arm-twisting Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 on the eve of release of the
Impugned Film.
23. Subsequently, the Plaintiffs instituted the present Suit on 21.10.2026,
prior to the scheduled theatrical release of the Impugned Film on
23.10.2026. Vide order dated 23.10.2026, this Court issued Notice in the
present Application and was of the opinion that the present Application
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 6 of 41
should be considered only after the Parties had been given an opportunity to
file their Written Statement and Reply to the present Application. Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 were also directed to make arrangements for playing the
Impugned Film so that it could be assessed whether the personality rights of
Plaintiff No. 1 had been infringed.
24. In the meantime, the Impugned Film was released theatrically on
23.10.2026. Thereafter, by order dated 29.10.2026, Rely to this Application
filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 was taken on record and they were directed to
furnish a pen drive containing the Impugned Film for the Court’s perusal.
The Plaintiffs were also directed to file Rejoinder to the Reply filed by
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 and a Table specifying the timestamps and the content
of the Impugned Film to which are objectionable and also the manuscript of
the Biopic in a sealed envelope.
25. Pursuant to the order dated 29.10.2026, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6
furnished a pen drive containing the Impugned Film. This Court viewed the
Impugned Film prior to the hearing of the present Application on
02.11.2026.
26. The Plaintiffs also filed Rejoinder and the Table specifying the
timestamps and duration of the scenes of the Impugned Film that the
Plaintiffs object. The Plaintiffs further submitted the manuscript of the
Biopic in a sealed envelope, which this Court perused prior to the hearing.
27. On 02.11.2026, learned Counsel for the Parties advanced their
submissions and sought time to file their respective Notes of Submissions,
which was granted until 04:00 PM on 04.11.2026.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 7 of 41
28. The Plaintiffs were further directed to provide the Teaser and the
Trailer, that were viewed by this Court during the hearing, on the same pen
drive containing the Impugned Film. The said pen drive was taken on record
and shall form part of the documents submitted on behalf of the Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6. The Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 also filed response to the Table
showing objectionable scenes, which was taken on record.
29. Upon conclusion of the hearing, the manuscript of the Biopic was
returned to learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs as recorded in the order dated
02.11.2026, which also records that the Judgment in the present Application
was reserved. The Parties have filed their respective Notes on Submissions
on 04.11.2026 and have been considered in this Judgment.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:
30. Mr. J. Sai Deepak, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiffs made the
following submissions:
30.1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have consciously employed Plaintiff No. l’s
identifiable persona, likeness and celebrated achievements and
iconic moments, particularly the 2002 NatWest Series Final and
his shirt-waving celebration at Lord’s, as significant commercial
attractions for the Impugned Film, without obtaining Plaintiff No.
l’s consent or authorisation.
30.2. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’ conduct has consequently prejudiced not
only Plaintiff No.1’s independent personality and publicity rights
but also the commercial value, exclusivity and exploitation
potential of the rights acquired by Plaintiff No. 2 vide the Life
Rights Agreement.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 8 of 41
30.3. The Agreements / Licenses placed on record by Defendant Nos. 1
to 6 demonstrate that the acquisition of archival footage rights is
distinct from the acquisition of rights in the names, identities,
images and personalities of individuals appearing therein.
30.4. Agreements placed on record by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 expressly
restrict the permitted purposes of exploitation and independently
place upon Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, the obligation to obtain
necessary third-party permissions and clearances. Defendant Nos.
1 to 6 have failed to produce any document establishing Plaintiff
No. 1’s authorisation for commercial exploitation of his name,
identity, likeness, persona or goodwill in connection with the
Impugned Film or its promotional campaign. Defendant Nos. 1 to
6 cannot, therefore, rely upon a collection of limited archival
footage licences as a substitute for such authorisation or as a
defence to the Plaintiffs’ claims concerning the infringement of
Plaintiff No. 1’s valuable, legally protected and enforceable
personality, publicity, identity, persona, goodwill and reputation
rights.
30.5. The fundamental distinction is between the copyright owner’s
permission to incorporate archival footage and the independent
right of an identifiable individual to object to unauthorised
commercial exploitation of his personality and goodwill. A footage
licence cannot automatically be treated as a personality rights
release, endorsement or blanket commercial authorisation.
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have not produced any specific
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 9 of 41
authorisation from Plaintiff No. 1 permitting the particular
commercial association and promotional exploitation complained
of by the Plaintiffs.
30.6. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’ contention that the Impugned Film revolves
around a fictional protagonist named Tara (“ Tara ”) is not borne
out from the actual viewing of the Impugned Film as its narrative
structure clearly show prominence of references to Plaintiff No. 1
alone.
30.7. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have themselves acknowledged that Tara’s
journey is juxtaposed against Plaintiff No. 1’s achievements and
that his contribution to Indian cricket is repeatedly interwoven
with the narrative. A significant aspect of the Impugned Film is the
repeated comparison of Tara’s struggles with the life and career of
Plaintiff No. 1, including challenges faced by him in his early life,
his subsequent achievements, defeats, setbacks and moments of
adversity, which are invoked as parallels to Tara’s personal
struggles, despite there being no parallel and the fundamentally
different circumstances of their respective lives.
30.8. The Impugned Film draws on Plaintiff No. 1’s public journey to
contextualise a story centred on a woman’s sexuality, marriage,
family expectations and search for self-acceptance. These
comparisons are made repeatedly without Plaintiff No. 1’s
permission, authorization or knowledge. By using Plaintiff No. 1’s
real-life achievements and losses as a recurring reference point for
a fictional narrative about Tara’s struggle with her sexual identity
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 10 of 41
and an unwanted or unfulfilling marriage, the Impugned Film
potentially creates an association between Plaintiff No. 1’s public
persona and a deeply personal story that is not his own.
30.9. The issue is not merely the use of a public figure as inspiration, but
the repeated references to Plaintiff No. 1’s name, achievements
and setbacks in a fictional narrative concerning experiences
substantially different from his own, thereby raising questions
about the creative and ethical boundaries of drawing parallels
between a fictional character with a real individual without their
consent.
30.10. The promotional material also establishes that the commercial
significance of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity. The Trailer prominently
features references to Plaintiff No. 1, including approximately 25-
27 seconds of coverage in the Trailer lasting 2 minutes and 12
seconds.
30.11. Defendant No. 5, in his interview reported on 16.10.2026,
acknowledged that the original proposal was to make a
documentary on Plaintiff No. 1, focusing on the 2002 NatWest
Series Final and other important milestones of Plaintiff No.1’s
career, the BookMyShow promotional synopsis expressly invokes
Plaintiff No. 1’s iconic shirt-waving celebration and connects it
with the theme of the Impugned Film. The promotional comments,
audience responses and reviews on the Impugned Film on social
media repeatedly associate the Impugned Film with Plaintiff No. 1,
his achievements and India’s historic NatWest victory.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 11 of 41
30.12. These circumstances collectively demonstrate that Plaintiff No. 1’s
identity and achievements are not being used merely as an
incidental historical reference and have been employed to create
audience recognition, emotional association, publicity and
commercial interest in the Impugned Film. The introduction of a
fictional protagonist cannot, by itself, immunise Defendant Nos. 1
to 6 from liability if the overall presentation and promotional
conduct amount to unauthorised commercial appropriation of an
identifiable personality.
30.13. The law recognises the commercial value of an individual’s
identity, name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive
attributes of personality. The right of publicity protects an
individual against unauthorised commercial exploitation of such
attributes, subject to the legitimate exercise of freedom of speech
and expression.
30.14. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’ reliance upon communications exchanged
during 2017-2019 is also misconceived. Preliminary discussions,
exploratory proposals, requests for interviews or the sharing of
archival material cannot be equated with consent / authorization /
waiver / acquiescence / participation / estoppel to the Impugned
Film or its eventual promotional campaign.
30.15. The email dated 06.06.2018 between Defendant No. 1 and Mr.
Rudra itself records concerns regarding the possible overlap
between the proposed documentary and the Biopic. The
subsequent response of Defendant No. 1 dated 16.06.2018 was a
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 12 of 41
unilateral explanation and cannot be treated as acceptance or
authorisation by Plaintiff No. 1. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 cannot
convert preliminary discussions predating the Life Rights
Agreement into perpetual consent, waiver or acquiescence.
30.16. A comparison of the Trailer with the Teaser clearly demonstrates
that the Teaser presented the Impugned Film as a story concerning
Indian cricket, rather than surrounding Plaintiff No. 1. Contrarily,
the Trailer specifically identifies and portrays Plaintiff No. 1 as its
principal character. Consequently, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’
contention that Plaintiff No. 1 was aware of the Impugned Film
through the Teaser and media reports in 2019 and ought not to
have waited until the day preceding its theatrical release to
approach this Court is without merit. The Plaintiffs acted promptly
after the Trailer was released on 12.10.2026, issuing the Legal
Notice and instituting the present proceedings on 21.10.2026. The
plea of unexplained delay is therefore untenable on the pleaded
chronology. The Teaser did not furnish Plaintiff No. 1 with a cause
of action to institute proceedings in 2019. Further, Defendant Nos.
1 to 6 took no steps to release the Impugned Film for seven years
following the release of the Teaser in 2019 but expedited its
release only after the release date of the Biopic was announced.
This demonstrates mala fides on the part of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6.
30.17. Clause 4(A) of the Life Rights Agreement clearly specifies that
Plaintiff No. 2 has agreed to pay Plaintiff No. 1 a sum of ₹25
Crores as fixed consideration and in addition to this vide Clause 5
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 13 of 41
of the Life Rights Agreement has agreed to additionally pay
further sum towards film branding revenues, share in the India Net
Box Office Collection and share in the Overseas Net Box Office
Collection etc., evidencing the substantial commercial value that
Plaintiff No.1’s life and personality rights have.
30.18. Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have also caused irreparable damage to the
novelty and exclusivity as well as diminution in the audience
interest in the Biopic, caused grave prejudice to licencing,
distribution and Over-the-Top (“ OTT ”) negotiation and altered the
market positioning of the Biopic. Therefore, the Plaintiffs are also
claiming punitive damages in the Suit.
30.19. In support of the aforesaid submissions, reliance was placed on the
following judgments:
i. Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited v. Nandi
Chinni Kumar , 2020 SCC OnLine TS 1282
ii. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers , 2012 SCC
OnLine Del 2382
iii. D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House , 2010
SCC OnLine Del 4790
iv. Salman Khan Vs. Ashok Kumar/John Doe & Ors. , order
dated 27.07.2026 passed by Delhi High Court in CS(Comm)
No. 1322/2025.
v. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions , 2015 SCC
OnLine Mad 158.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 14 of 41
vi. Mr. Sunil Gavaskar Vs. Cricket Tak (Crickettak557) &
Ors. , order dated 23.12.2025 passed by Delhi High Court in
CS (Comm) No. 1329/2025.
vii. Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store , (2024) 2 HCC
(Del) 253
viii. Sanjay v. Karan Johar , 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 1745
ix. Yuvraj Singh v. Ashok Kumar , 2026 SCC OnLine Del 5464
x. ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee
Enterprises , 2003 SCC OnLine Del 2
30.20. Considering the principles enunciated in the aforesaid judgments
and orders, the Plaintiffs seek the grant of an interim injunction in
the terms prayed for in the present Application. In the alternative,
the Plaintiffs pray that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 be directed to deposit
security towards the damages claimed in the present Suit, without
prejudice to the respective rights and contentions of the Parties.
30.21. In addition to the aforesaid relief, the Plaintiffs seek a direction
requiring Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to furnish complete accounts of all
revenues derived from the exploitation of the Impugned Film,
together with particulars of profits already generated, presently
accruing or to be generated in the future. The Plaintiffs further
pray that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 be directed to preserve all financial
records and distribution agreements relating to the Impugned Film.
They also seek disclosure of the consideration received or
receivable in respect of its exploitation through OTT platforms,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 15 of 41
satellite transmission, theatrical exhibition, promotional
arrangements and all other modes of exploitation.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NOS. 1 TO 6
31. Mr. Mr. Sourav Kirpal, learned Senior Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1
to 6 made the following submissions:
31.1. The Plaintiffs have approached this Court with an unexplained
delay of nearly 9 years that disentitles the Plaintiffs to any ad-
interim relief and the appropriate remedy is damages. Reliance was
placed on John Hart Jr. v. Mukul Deora , 2021 SCC OnLine Del
3499.
31.2. Plaintiff No. 1 was aware of the Impugned Film, its nature and
scope and the proposed usage of the archival footage as also
interview footage since the year 2017. Plaintiff No. 1 has at no
point claimed that any license was required for his personality
rights.
31.3. The Plaintiffs, offering no explanation on affidavit and having
denied prior knowledge, belatedly contending that the Teaser did
not portray Plaintiff as an inspirational figure, admits prior
knowledge and is belied by the Plaintiff’s own remarks in the
Teaser itself.
31.4. Plaintiff No. 1 is not a central character, and the Impugned Film is
not a biopic. The licensed archival footage involving Plaintiff No.
1 in the Impugned Film is only 4 minutes. The Plaintiffs have
acknowledged that there is no right to commercialize historical
events and that the Plaintiffs do not own the rights to the archival
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 16 of 41
footage used. The personalization of archival footage is not a
subset of personality rights, and such an esoteric expansion is
unknown to law.
31.5. The Impugned Film is a docudrama that is built around the life of
Tara growing up in smalltown India, finding her voice and
identity, against the backdrop of a country that worships the game
of cricket. Tara, lives in a household that is controlled entirely by
the patriarch, her father, with her mother constantly reprimanding
her to fall in line and abide by her womanly duties. The Impugned
Film follows Tara’s life and her struggles, even dealing
substantially with her discovery and struggle for acceptance of her
true sexual identity. As Tara’s life progresses, her troubles in the
regressive society surrounding her continues and at each stage of
difficulty, the Impugned Film turns to show how Indian cricket,
led by Plaintiff No. 1 at the time, fought to overcome its own
hurdles and emerge successful.
31.6. While the Impugned Film follows Tara’s personal life, it also, in
parallel, follows the journey of Indian cricket through its phases of
growth in the 1990s and finally the later bilateral series of the early
2000s that established the Indian cricket team as a formidable
force.
31.7. As part of the Impugned Film’s depiction of major cricketing
moments in India, the Impugned Film interweaves Tara’s source of
inspiration i.e., Plaintiff No. 1, only through his moments of
contribution to Indian cricket. The incidents referenced in the
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 17 of 41
Impugned Film as acts of inspiration for Tara are strictly within
the realm of Plaintiff No. 1 acting on behalf of the Indian cricket
team. The Impugned Film contains references to various other
players and personalities as well.
31.8. The Impugned Film revolves around the themes of self-discovery,
women empowerment, breaking the shackles of a patriarchal
society, and the idea of standing for one’s rights and entitlements,
contrary to what society or those in power might dictate.
31.9. No part of the Impugned Film covers the personal life of Plaintiff
No. 1 or any other aspects which would be part of the Biopic or
any other film that can be categorized as one that is based on
Plaintiff No. 1, his identity, persona, likeness, reputation or
goodwill. This aspect is evidently clarified by the disclaimer in the
Impugned Film.
31.10. It is settled law that ‘personality rights’ require an element of
endorsement / association and the Impugned Film evidently does
not convey any endorsement by or association with Plaintiff No. 1.
Reliance was placed on DM Entertainment ( supra ).
31.11. The use of the archival footages in the Impugned Film is licensed
by the respective copyright owners, including the BCCI. The
Plaintiffs admit that there is no right to commercialize historical
events and that the Plaintiffs do not own the rights to the archival
footage used. The Plaintiffs’ claim that there exists a right to
preclude the ‘personalization of archival footage’ is misplaced.
Nandi Chinni Kumar ( supra ) concerned fictionalized characters
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 18 of 41
unlike the present case which uses archival footage, whereas
Shivaji Rao Gaikwad ( supra ) and Karan Johar ( supra ) are
factually distinguishable. Reliance was placed on Krishna Kishore
Singh v. Sarla A. Saraogi 2023 SCC OnLine Del 3997 to submit
that no personality rights can be claimed where the details are
available in the public record and that no personality rights can be
claimed in historical events.
31.12. The judgement of this Court in ICC Development ( supra ) is
inapplicable to the present case as the said judgment did not
concern personality rights and was only concerned with the use of
logos and names. The Supreme Court in the context of privacy
claims in R. Rajagopal v. State of T.N. (1994) 6 SCC 632 has held
that matters of public record which would include historic sporting
events are a legitimate subject of comment.
31.13. The Plaintiffs’ claim, if permitted, would have a chilling effect on
free speech. The same would effectively preclude the
fictionalization and reporting of historical events due to the same
involving personalities and their rights. The suggestion that public
personalities after participating in historical events can preclude
the use of those historical events as being matters of record or
inspiration is per se unfounded. Such a position is wholly
inequitable as it is the participation in these historical events that
otherwise justifies the celebrity’s claim to personality rights and
affords them a narrow right to preclude false endorsement and
association. The usage of archival footage that is already governed
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 19 of 41
by licenses under the framework of the Copyright Act, 1957
cannot be precluded by esoteric claims that the historical footage
now stands imbued with intangible personality rights.
31.14. The Plaintiffs have conceded that the rights of Plaintiff No. 2 are
irrelevant to the present lis . Thus, the balance of convenience lies
with Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, who have released the Impugned Film
on 23.10.2026 and have signed agreements for worldwide release
on OTT platforms. There is no cause or basis to injunct the
Impugned Film in any manner and damages will afford a more
than satisfactory remedy.
31.15. As the Impugned Film does not misrepresent Plaintiff No. 1’s
achievements, does not suggest that Plaintiff No. 1 endorsed or
participated in the production of the Impugned Film, and the
Plaintiffs have not demonstrated specific harm to Plaintiff No. 1,
damages may afford a more than satisfactory remedy for Plaintiff
No. 1 and there is no pleading or basis to assume that irreparable
injury will be caused to Plaintiff No. 1.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT NO. 7
32. Mr. Shivam Goel, learned Counsel for Defendant No. 7, submitted
that Defendant No. 7 is merely the distributor of the Impugned Film and has
no role in its production or content. It is further submitted on behalf of
Defendant No. 7 that as the Plaintiffs have not attributed any specific act of
infringement of Plaintiff No. 1’s personality, publicity, identity, persona,
reputation and goodwill rights to Defendant No. 7, it has chosen to not file
any Reply to the present Application. Learned Counsel for Defendant No. 7
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 20 of 41
further submitted that, in view of its limited role as a distributor, if any
direction for deposit of any amount is passed, the same may not be directed
against Defendant No. 7.
ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS
33. This Court has considered the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Parties and examined the material placed on record, including the
manuscript of the Biopic, Table filed by the Plaintiffs specifying the time
stamps and the content of the Impugned Film to which they object, together
with Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’ response thereto. This Court has also viewed the
Impugned Film, the Teaser and the Trailer.
34. The principal question that arises for consideration in the present
Application is whether the use of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity, persona,
likeness, reputation and achievements in the Impugned Film and its
promotional material amounts to an infringement of personality and
publicity rights of Plaintiff No. 1, warranting the grant of an interim
injunction.
35. The right to publicity, popularly known as personality rights is the
right to protect, control, and profit from one’s image, name, or likeness.
Personality Rights of individuals, simply put, entail the right to control and
protect the exploitation of one’s image, name, likeness or other attributes of
the individuals’ personality, in addition to the commercial gains that can be
derived from the same. The right of publicity gives an individual a personal
control over commercial display and exploitation of his personality and the
exercise of his talents as held in Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting
Company , 1977 SCC OnLine US SC 153.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 21 of 41
36. This Court in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. Peppy Store , 2024 SCC
OnLine Del 3664 observed as under:
“ 5. The plaintiff's commercial endorsements leverage his personality,
name, voice, image, likeness, mannerisms, gestures and other uniquely
identifiable characteristics associated with him. These attributes over
which the plaintiff exercises exclusive control, constitute his
“personality rights” and “publicity rights”. The unauthorised use of
these characteristics for commercial purposes not only infringes upon
these rights but also dilutes the brand equity painstakingly built by the
plaintiff over the years. The plaintiff, being a person of celebrity status,
possesses “personality/publicity rights” over all facets of his persona.
In this suit, the plaintiff seeks protection of his personality rights,
publicity rights and various elements associated with his identity,
including his name, voice, photograph, image, likeness, unique style of
dialogue delivery, distinctive gestures and mannerisms. These attributes
collectively form the plaintiff's public persona and unauthorised use of
any of these elements infringes upon the exclusive rights he holds over
his identity. ”
37. The High Court of Judicature at Bombay in Chitra Jagjit Singh v.
Panache Media , 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 2364 held that:
“ 5. The right of an individual, especially a public figure or celebrity, to
control the commercial value and exploitation of his name or pictures
or likeness or to prevent others from unfairly appropriating that value
for their commercial benefit, has come to be known as a “right of
publicity”. This right is said to be evolved from the “right of privacy”,
though the right of privacy itself is described as distinct from the right
of publicity as it has come to be evolved. Though the reported
judgments do not indicate any uniformity about the nature of this right,
its evolution and exact contours, and the notions concerning this right
still seem to be somewhat hazy, broadly it seems to have been accepted
in various jurisdictions including courts in India as a valuable
proprietary right. As explained by Delhi High Court in the case of ICC
Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprise, the right of
publicity has evolved from the right of privacy and can inhere only in
an individual for any indicia of an individual's personality like his
name, personality trait, signature, voice etc. This right vests in an
individual and he alone is entitled to profit from it. ”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 22 of 41
38. In DM. Entertainment ( supra ), a suit was filed alleging that the
defendants therein, without the plaintiff’s authority therein, misappropriated
the plaintiff’s persona and likeness and invaded the exclusive right of the
plaintiff therein to market his personality. While granting a decree of
permanent injunction, this Court observed that the right of publicity protects
against the unauthorized appropriation of an individual’s very persona,
which would result in unearned commercial gain to another and that the
commercial use of the plaintiff’s identity was intended to increase the sales
of product by fusing the plaintiff’s identity with the product and selling
those products, on the basis of publicity value or goodwill in the plaintiff’s
persona into the concerned product therein. Accordingly, the use of
plaintiff’s persona for the purpose of capitalizing upon his name by using its
conjunction with the commercial product was held to be not proper or
legitimate.
39. The High Court of Madras in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad ( supra ) referred
to the judgment delivered by the World Intellectual Property Organizations
(WIPO) in Case No. D2009-1247 titled Ms. Barkha Dutt v. Easyticket
wherein it was held that:
“ … an unauthorized use of a famous person's name is not a bonafide
use and if such name is used to lure users, it does not confer rights or
legitimate interests on the infringer and it has been further held that the
right to commercially use or exploit one's own name, vests with the
person who has worked to create the fame and can lawfully restrict any
other third party from exploiting that fame for commercial purposes. ”
40. In Shivaji Rao Gaikwad ( supra ), the High Court of Madras was
concerned with the plaintiff, a famous and well acclaimed actor, who had
filed the suit seeking injunction restraining the defendant from using his
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 23 of 41
name in a movie “ Main Hoon Rajinikanth ” contending that the defendant
therein cannot use his name, image, caricature, style of delivering dialogues
without any permission or authorization whatsoever from him; that the
defendant had deliberately used his name etc. in its forthcoming feature film
only with a mala fide intention to derive illicit benefits based upon the
goodwill emanating from the well-known personality status of the plaintiff
therein, that such an unauthorised use amounts to infringement of copyright,
infiltration of personality rights and passing off besides being a gross
violation of privacy, and causing considerable confusion in the public as to
association between the plaintiff and the defendant therein. In this context,
the High Court of Madras observed as under:
“ 22. In the instant case, on seeing the title of the impugned movie, it could be
easily inferred that the public perspective about the impugned movie appears
to be only with reference to the plaintiff herein alone and not connected to any
other person, which is evident from the website pages hosted by various
persons making comments on the plaintiff with regard to the title of the
impugned movie. Though the learned counsel appearing for the defendant
contended that the defendant cannot be held responsible for the comments
made in the internet website pages, the comments made in the internet website
pages would go to prove that on seeing the title of the impugned movie, the
name of the plaintiff alone gets etched in the minds of the persons who come
across the advertisement depicting the title of the movie. Therefore, the
printout websites pages produced by the plaintiff would clearly show that the
plaintiff could be easily identifiable by others from the defendant's
unauthorized use of the plaintiff's name in the impugned movie ‘Main Hoon
Rajinikanth’. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the
defendant that the contents in the website pages and the contents in the movie
do not refer the plaintiff, cannot be accepted.
xxxxx
23. …. As observed earlier, in the instant case, on seeing the name of
Rajinikanth in the tile of the impugned movie, the persons, who are coming
across the tile of the impugned movie, are identifying the name only with the
plaintiff herein, which is evident from the website pages hosted by different
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 24 of 41
persons. Therefore, in my opinion, even assuming for a moment that the
impugned movie is not a biopic of the plaintiff, since the name found in the title
of the impugned movie is identifiable only with the plaintiff, who happens to be
a celebrity and not with any other person, the defendant is not entitled to use
the said name without the permission of the plaintiff/celebrity, particularly
when he had chosen to advertise the movie with a title ‘Hot Kavita
Radheshyam As Sex Worker For Rajinikanth’. ”
41. The distinctive feature of the common law right of publicity lies in its
recognition of the commercial value inherent in the image or representation
of a prominent individual or performer, and its protection of that
individual’s proprietary interest in the commercial value of his public
reputation and persona. The protection afforded by this right extends to the
individual’s ability to determine whether, and in what manner, his likeness
or other identifiable attributes of his personality may be commercially
exploited. Thus, the right of publicity encompasses not merely the
opportunity to derive commercial benefit from one’s identity, but also the
autonomy to authorise or decline its commercial use. The essential concern
is the individual’s control over the exploitation of the value associated with
his likeness, public reputation and persona, rather than the mere fact that
those attributes are publicly recognisable.
42. This Court in Titan Industries Ltd. ( supra ) held that the basic
elements comprising the liability for infringement of the right of publicity
are validity, that is, the plaintiff owns an enforceable right in the identity or
persona of a human being and identifiability, that is, the Celebrity must be
identifiable from defendant’s unauthorized use.
43. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, Plaintiff No. 1 is a
celebrated Indian cricketer and a former Captain of the Indian National
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 25 of 41
Cricket Team. His name, image, likeness and persona are associated with
considerable goodwill, public recognition and reputation. These attributes
constitute the identifiable elements of his public persona in respect of which
he possesses enforceable personality and publicity rights. Further, Plaintiff
No. 1 is identifiable from the archival footage incorporated in the Impugned
Film, and the use of such footage permits his identity to be readily
recognised. Accordingly, there exists of an enforceable right in the identity
or persona of Plaintiff No. 1 and his identifiability from the use complained
of are prima fac ie satisfied in the present case. There can, therefore, be no
dispute as to the existence of Plaintiff No. 1’s personality and publicity
rights or his identifiability in the Impugned Film.
44. Learned Senior Counsel for Respondent Nos. 1 to 6 has also candidly
acknowledged that the existence of Plaintiff No. 1’s personality rights is not
in dispute. The controversy is confined to whether those rights have been
infringed in the manner alleged by the Plaintiffs and, if so, the nature of such
infringement. The acknowledgment of the existence of these rights must,
therefore, be distinguished from an admission that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6’
conduct constitutes their infringement. Accordingly, the question requiring
consideration by this Court is not whether Plaintiff No. 1 possesses
personality rights, but whether the use complained of amounts to a violation
of those rights.
45. It is submitted on behalf of the Plaintiffs that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6
have deliberately employed Plaintiff No. 1’s identifiable persona, celebrated
achievements and iconic moments as significant commercial attractions for
the Impugned Film, without obtaining his consent or authorisation.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 26 of 41
According to the Plaintiffs, the use of these attributes is neither incidental
nor confined to providing a historical reference within the narrative. Rather,
Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and achievements have been consciously
incorporated to secure audience recognition, foster an emotional association
with the Impugned Film, generate publicity and enhance commercial interest
in it. The substance of the Plaintiffs’ grievance is, therefore, not the mere
reference to Plaintiff No. 1 or his achievements, but the alleged use of the
recognition and appeal associated with his persona as a means of attracting
audiences and promoting the Impugned Film for commercial benefit,
without his authorisation.
46. Per contra , it is contended on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 that the
Impugned Film is a docudrama centred on the personal journey of Tara,
whose struggles are depicted against the backdrop of developments in Indian
cricket. According to Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, Tara’s journey constitutes the
principal narrative of the Impugned Film, while the references to cricket
serve as the contextual backdrop against which that journey unfolds. They
further submit that the achievements of Plaintiff No. 1 are invoked merely as
a source of inspiration for Tara, rather than as the subject of a narrative
concerning Plaintiff No. 1 himself. On this basis, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6
maintain that the Impugned Film neither concerns Plaintiff No. 1’s personal
life nor portrays him as its central character. Their submission is, therefore,
that the references to Plaintiff No. 1 must be understood in the context of
their inspirational role in Tara’s story, and not as a portrayal of his own
personal journey.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 27 of 41
47. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 further submitted
that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 had obtained licences from the respective
copyright owners authorising the use of archival footage of cricket matches
and events in the Impugned Film. In support of their position, Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 relied upon these licences as the basis for incorporating the
relevant archival footage into the Impugned Film.
48. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant No. 1 to 6 also placed reliance
upon the communications exchanged during the period from 2017 to 2019 to
contend that Plaintiff No. 1 was fully aware of the nature and scope of the
Impugned Film. According to Defendant Nos. 1 to 6, those communications
demonstrated Plaintiff No. 1’s prior knowledge of the proposed project and
its intended scope. Thus, Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 relied upon the licences in
relation to the use of the archival footage, and upon the earlier
communications in relation to Plaintiff No. 1’s awareness of the project.
49. Upon consideration of the submissions advanced on behalf of the
Parties and a viewing of the Impugned Film, the Teaser and the Trailer, this
Court finds that the Impugned Film comprises two distinct narratives that
proceed in parallel. Its distinctive artistic expression lies in the combination
of a fictional personal journey with real-life cricketing events, thereby
presenting the fictional and historical strands alongside one another within a
single cinematographic work. The first narrative concerns Tara’s personal
journey, including the challenges she encounters in relation to family
expectations, marriage and her personal identity. The second narrative traces
the achievements and setbacks of Plaintiff No. 1, beginning with his early
years in international cricket and extending to his captaincy of the Indian
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 28 of 41
National Cricket Team and the victory at Lord’s in 2002 in the NatWest
Final between England and India. Thus, while the two narratives concern
different subjects, the structure of the Impugned Film brings Tara’s fictional
journey and Plaintiff No. 1’s actual cricketing journey together in a parallel
presentation.
50. The conversations between Tara and her family members frequently
refer to Plaintiff No. 1, his performance, attitude and achievements. These
references, considered together with the archival footage concerning him,
demonstrate that his presence in the Impugned Film is not confined to the
depiction of events in the history of Indian cricket. Rather, the footage and
the recurring references to his persona are drawn upon to support and
develop the fictional narrative concerning Tara. Plaintiff No. 1 thus serves
not merely as a figure in the historical background, but as a recurring
reference point through which Tara’s story is advanced and presented. The
significance of his portrayal must, therefore, be assessed in the context of
the narrative function that these references perform, rather than by treating
the archival footage in isolation as a record of cricketing events. Viewed in
this context, the repeated incorporation of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and
persona into the fictional narrative cannot, prima facie , be characterised as
merely incidental to the depiction of historical events.
51. There can be no cavil that a creative work may draw inspiration from
historical events and public figures, and that the mere juxtaposition of a
fictional narrative with such events does not, by itself, constitute an
infringement of personality rights. The distinction requiring consideration is
between the use of a public figure as part of a historical account and the use
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 29 of 41
of the recognition and commercial appeal associated with that individual’s
identity and persona to attract interest in the work.
52. There is also no doubt that the right of publicity of a personality must
be balanced against the right to freedom of speech and artistic expression,
and neither the commercial value of a celebrity’s identity nor the
commercial character of a creative work can, by itself, dispense with that
exercise. The relevant inquiry concerns the nature, manner and purpose of
the use of the individual’s identity and persona. A distinction must,
accordingly, be drawn between their use in the legitimate exercise of
expressive freedom and their appropriation primarily as a means of deriving
commercial benefit from the recognition and appeal associated with the
individual’s fame. Where the latter purpose is apparent, a mere invocation of
freedom of expression does not justify the appropriation of that economic
value.
53. In the present case, the Impugned Film does not merely depict
Plaintiff No. 1 as a participant in the history of Indian cricket. Rather, it
draws upon the recognition and commercial appeal associated with his
identity and persona to generate interest in the fictional narrative concerning
Tara. The promotional material placed on record further indicates that his
identity and persona have been employed to generate commercial interest in
the Impugned Film. The concern, therefore, is not the mere inclusion of
historical cricketing events or references to Plaintiff No. 1, but the manner
and purpose for which the commercial value associated with his persona has
been utilised in the narrative and its promotion.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 30 of 41
54. The Impugned Film prima facie appears to be commercially
exploiting the identity of Plaintiff No. 1 in a manner that extends beyond
legitimate storytelling. The parallel sought to be drawn between Tara’s
awakening and her courage to express herself before her father, on the one
hand, and Plaintiff No. 1’s cricketing journey, his shirtless celebration or
India’s victory in a particular cricket match, on the other, does not arise
naturally from the circumstances of the respective narratives. These
experiences are distinct, and their repeated juxtaposition does not, by itself,
establish an inherent connection between Tara’s fictional journey and
Plaintiff No. 1’s real-life achievements. Indian cricket history contains
numerous other victories and achievements that could have served as a
source of inspiration for Tara without requiring Plaintiff No. 1 to be
specifically identified as that source. The association presented at several
stages of the Impugned Film is, therefore, one created by the narrative rather
than a parallel naturally existing between the fictional and historical events.
In these circumstances, the invocation of artistic freedom cannot justify the
commercial exploitation of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity or permit Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 to impinge upon his personality rights, which are protected under
common law.
55. In this context, reference may be made to the observations of this
Court in Titan Industries Ltd. ( supra ), concerning the meaning of a
celebrity and the nature and scope of publicity rights. These observations are
relevant to the distinction between an individual’s public recognition and his
right to control the commercial use of his identity and explain that the
concern underlying publicity rights is not merely the fact that a celebrity’s
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 31 of 41
identity is commercially valuable, but the entitlement of that individual to
determine when, where and in what manner such identity may be used for
commercial purposes. These observations provide the context for examining
the manner in which Plaintiff No. 1’s identity has been employed in the
Impugned Film and its promotional material, and are reproduced below:
“Haelan Laborotories v. Topps Chewing Gum [202 F2d 866]
“A man has a right in the publicity value of his photograph i.e. the
right to grant the exclusive privilege of publishing his picture, and
that such a grant may validly be made ‘in gross,’ i.e. without an
accompanying transfer of a business or of anything else.
This right might be called a ‘right of publicity’. For it is common
knowledge that many prominent persons (especially actors and
ballplayers), far from having their feelings bruised through public
exposure of their likenesses, would feel sorely deprived if they no
longer received money for authorizing advertisements, popularizing
their countenances, displayed in newspapers, magazines, busses,
trains and subways. This right of publicity would usually yield them
no money unless it could be made the subject of an exclusive grant
which barred any other advertiser from using their pictures.”
II. ‘Publicity right’ of a Celebrity
A celebrity is defined as a famous or a well-known person. A
‘celebrity’ is merely a person who ‘many’ people talk about or know
about.
When the identity of a famous personality is used in advertising
without their permission, the complaint is not that no one should not
commercialize their identity but that the right to control when,
where and how their identity is used should vest with the famous
personality. The right to control commercial use of human identity is
the right to publicity.
Ali v. Playgirl 447 F Supp 723 “A distinctive aspect of the common
law right of publicity is that it recognizes the commercial value of
the picture or representation of a prominent person or performer,
and protects his proprietary interest in the profitability of his public
reputation or persona”
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 32 of 41
D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House [CS(OS) No. 893
of 2002] “In the present instance the commercial use of an
individual's identity is intended to increase the sales of product by
fusing the celebrity's identity with the product and thereby the
defendant's were selling those dolls, on the basis of publicity value
or goodwill in the artist's persona into the product i.e. doll.”
No one was free to trade on another's name or appearance and
claim immunity”
[Emphasis supplied]
56. It is contended on behalf of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 that the archival
footage featuring Plaintiff No. 1 accounts for only 4 minutes of the
Impugned Film. This Court is, however, of the view that the duration of
such footage cannot be treated as the sole or determinative consideration in
assessing whether a prima facie case of infringement of Plaintiff No. 1’s
personality, publicity, identity, persona, reputation and goodwill rights has
been established. A perusal of the Table specifying the timestamps, read
together with this Court’s viewing of the Impugned Film, indicates that a
quantitative assessment of the screen time devoted to references to Plaintiff
No. 1 does not, by itself, establish the narrative function or commercial
significance of the use complained of. The inquiry must also consider the
manner in which Plaintiff No. 1’s identity is incorporated into the narrative
and whether the recognition associated with that identity is employed to
generate interest in the Impugned Film. Accordingly, the contention
concerning the limited duration of the archival footage cannot be accepted in
the context of its use within the artistic work, rather than in isolation.
57. In the present case, the repeated references to Plaintiff No. 1’s
setbacks, achievements, attitude and persona, their incorporation into the
fictional narrative, and the prominence accorded to his name and image in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 33 of 41
the promotional material, cumulatively taken together, prima facie indicate
that Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 have drawn upon the recognition and commercial
appeal associated with Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona to generate
interest in the Impugned Film.
58. The significance of the use of the identity of Plaintiff No. 1 extends
beyond the archival footage itself as the recurring references within the
script of the fictional part of the Impunge Film’s narrative and the emphasis
in the promotional material reinforce the association between Plaintiff No. 1
and the Impugned Film. His identity and persona are, therefore, not used
merely to depict historical events, but also to attract audiences by invoking
the recognition and goodwill associated with him. On the material presently
before this Court, such use prima facie reflects an attempt by Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 to derive commercial benefit from Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and
ride on coattails of persona of Plaintiff No. 1 without obtaining his
authorisation.
59. As regards the reliance placed by learned Senior Counsel for
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 upon the licences obtained for the use of archival
footage of cricket matches and events, a distinction must be drawn between
permission to incorporate such footage into the Impugned Film and
authorisation to commercially exploit Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona.
The licences granted by the respective copyright owners concern the use of
the archival footage and clearly exclude use of any personal rights.
Therefore, such licenses cannot, by themselves, be construed as consent on
the part of Plaintiff No. 1 to the commercial exploitation of his personality
rights. Accordingly, the acquisition of permission to use the footage does not
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 34 of 41
resolve the separate question involved in this Application of the manner in
which Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona have been employed in the
Impugned Film, and its promotional material and whether such use infringes
personality rights of Plaintiff No. 1.
60. Learned Senior Counsel for Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 also relied upon
the communications exchanged between Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant No. 1
or her husband during the period from 2017 to 2019 to contend that Plaintiff
No. 1 was fully aware of the nature and scope of the Impugned Film and that
the Plaintiffs had approached this Court after a delay of nearly nine years.
61. A perusal of the correspondence relied upon by Defendant Nos. 1 to 6
does not disclose that Plaintiff No. 1, at any relevant stage, consented to or
authorised the manner in which his identity and persona were subsequently
used in the Impugned Film. Knowledge of a proposed film and
communications concerning its development do not establish authorisation
for the particular use of an individual’s identity ultimately incorporated into
the completed work. Indeed, the email dated 06.06.2018 addressed by Mr.
Rudra to Defendant No. 1 expressly records a concern regarding the possible
overlap between a documentary concerning Plaintiff No. 1 and the Biopic,
which was under contemplation at that stage itself, based on his life story,
personal and professional journey, experiences and achievements.
62. That contemporaneous expression of concern regarding impact on the
proposed Biopic in 2018 itself shows that Plaintiff No. 1 never gave consent
for use of his personality rights by Defendant No. 1. Therefore, while
evaluating the contention that the earlier correspondence established consent
or justified the plea of delay, the correspondence available on record does
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 35 of 41
not show any conferment of an unrestricted authorisation to use Plaintiff No.
1’s identity and persona in the manner subsequently adopted in the
Impugned Film.
63. No material has been placed on record to establish that, prior to the
release of the Trailer, Plaintiff No. 1 was aware of the specific manner in
which his identity and persona would ultimately be depicted and employed
in the Impugned Film. This Court’s comparative viewing of the Teaser and
the Trailer reveals a marked distinction in the narrative presented by the two
promotional works. The Teaser includes an excerpt from an interview
between Mr. Virat Kohli and Plaintiff No. 1 and conveys the impression that
the proposed film principally concerns the journey of Indian cricket during
the relevant period, as seen through the eyes of a young girl. The Trailer and
the subsequently released Impugned Film, however, present a materially
different narrative, focused on a particular member of the Indian National
Cricket Team who subsequently became its Captain and led it to victory in
the NatWest Series Final, namely, Plaintiff No. 1.
64. The earlier correspondence between Plaintiff No. 1 and Defendant
No. 1 and her husband concerned a proposed interview in London for a
documentary then under preparation, together with the remuneration payable
for the time Plaintiff No. 1 would devote to that interview. At no stage was
Plaintiff No. 1 informed that he would be portrayed as the central character
in a docufiction cinematographic film. Notably, no response was received on
behalf of Plaintiff No. 1 to the proposal for an interview in connection with
the documentary then being prepared by Defendant No. 1. Accordingly,
awareness of the project as presented in the Teaser cannot be equated with
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 36 of 41
knowledge of the specific narrative and manner of use of Plaintiff No. 1’s
identity subsequently disclosed in the Trailer and the completed Impugned
Film.
65. Having regard to the nature of the use complained of and the material
through which such use became apparent, the plea of delay and laches
cannot be accepted. In these circumstances, the contention of Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6 that Plaintiff No. 1 ought to have approached this Court upon the
release of the Teaser itself, and that his failure to do so disentitles the
Plaintiffs to relief on the ground of delay and laches, is untenable. The fact
that the Parties corresponded concerning the proposed project establishes
that Defendant No. 1 was aware about the rights of Plaintiff No. 1 rather
than acquiescence in the specific narrative and promotional use complained
of in the present proceedings.
66. As regards the reliance placed on R. Rajagopal ( supra ) by Defendant
Nos. 1 to 6, there is no dispute that once a matter becomes a matter of public
record, the right to privacy no longer subsists. However, the grievance of
Plaintiff No. 1 in the present case is the manner in which Plaintiff No. 1’s
identity, persona and achievements have been used in the Impugned Film
and its promotional material to generate commercial interest in the
Impugned Film by drawing upon the recognition and commercial appeal
associated with Plaintiff No. 1.
67. The Impugned Film draws upon significant milestones in Plaintiff No.
1’s cricketing journey that have contributed to his public recognition and the
distinctive identity associated with him including his selection as Captain of
the Indian National Cricket Team at a time when allegations of betting in
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 37 of 41
Indian cricket had surfaced, and his subsequent leadership of the team to
victory in the final match, followed by his iconic shirt-waving celebration.
These events constitute defining moments in his personal and public
journey, and Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to determine the manner in which his
identity and persona are commercially presented through a narrative of his
own. The significance of their use in the Impugned Film must, therefore, be
considered in the context of the recognition and commercial appeal
associated with those milestones. Further, Plaintiff No. 1 had informed
Defendant No. 1 of the proposed Biopic in 2018 itself and despite knowing
the same, Defendant No. 1 to 6 went ahead of the release of the Impugned
Film after an unexplained hiatus of nearly seven years, immediately
following the announcement of the release of the Biopic. This raises a prima
facie impression about the intention of Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 to
commercially exploit Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona ahead of the
Biopic’s release. This sequence of events is relevant for determining the
grant of interim relief in this Application.
68. In view of the above discussion, the Plaintiffs have made out a prima
facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Impugned Film is not
confined to the depiction of historical events involving Plaintiff No. 1 and
the manner in which the persona of Plaintiff No. 1 has been incorporated
into the fictional narrative of the Impugned Film and also used in the
promotion of the Impugned Film, prima facie indicates that Plaintiff No. 1’s
identity and persona have been employed to generate commercial interest in
the Impugned Film thereby amounting to unauthorised commercial
exploitation of personality, publicity, identity, persona, likeness, reputation
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 38 of 41
and goodwill of Plaintiff No. 1. This Court is of the prima facie view that
Defendant No. 1 to 6 have commercially exploited the personality rights of
Plaintiff No. 1 by unauthorised use of Plaintiff No. 1’s identity and persona.
The prejudice arising from such exploitation has not only resulted in a
damage to personality of Plaintiff No. 1 but also impaired his ability to
determine whether, and in what manner, his identity and persona may be
commercially used.
69. This Court has considered whether directing the Defendants to
remove the objectionable portions of the Impugned Film identified in the
Table filed by the Plaintiffs would constitute a workable alternative to
restraining its continued exhibition. The Impugned Film, however,
interweaves two distinct thematic strands: once being a fictional narrative
and the other being a documentary account of real-life events concerning
Plaintiff No. 1 and the use of Plaintiff No. 1’s personality is embedded in the
manner in which these narratives are combined, rather than confined to
separate portions capable of removal in isolation. Excision of the identified
portions would, therefore, necessitate the dissection, restructuring and
reconfiguration of the artistic expression embodied in the Impugned Film,
which is not permissible by a judicial direction. Accordingly, the selective
deletion of scenes is not a workable alternative.
70. However, since the Impugned Film has already been released
theatrically, the balance of convenience favours not to restrain the viewing
by the public at this interim stage, subject to two conditions: (i) Defendants
shall ensure that an appropriately worded disclaimer is displayed
prominently in large fonts at the beginning in both English and Hindi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 39 of 41
languages having duration of 5 seconds each immediately after the existing
disclaimer and the end of the Impugned Film in both English and Hindi
languages having duration 2 seconds each prior to the commencement of
credits clearly stating that the Impugned Film is not intended to violate or
infringe the personality rights of Mr. Sourav Ganguly and that the use of his
name in the Impugned Film shall not be construed as his acknowledgment of
or consent to such use, which remains sub judice in the present proceedings,
within two days of the date of this Judgment; and (ii) either of the
Defendant Nos. 1 to 6 shall furnish an unconditional Bank Guarantee for
INR 2,00,00,000 (Rupees Two Crores only) in favour of the worthy
Registrar General of this Court, as security to protect the Plaintiffs’ rights
during the pendency of the Suit within two weeks from the date of this
Judgment.
71. In the event of non-compliance with the either of the aforesaid
directions within the respective stipulated periods, the Defendants are,
jointly and severally, together with their agents, representatives, producers,
distributors, exhibitors, licensees, successors, assigns and all persons acting
for or through them, restrained from exhibiting, screening, distributing,
transmitting, communicating to the public, broadcasting, streaming, making
available on OTT or other digital services, selling, licensing, monetising or
otherwise exploiting the Impugned Film, whether in India or outside India,
through theatrical, non-theatrical, television, satellite, digital, online, OTT,
ancillary or any other means, modes, media, formats or platforms and shall
further stand restrained from creating, publishing, uploading, hosting,
communicating to the public, circulating, advertising, publicising,
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 40 of 41
marketing, sponsoring, boosting or otherwise disseminating any trailer,
teaser, poster, still, clip, short, reel, interview-based promotional material,
advertisement, electronic press kit, publicity artwork or other promotional
material relating to the Impugned Film, including the Trailer released on
12.10.2026, that commercially appropriates Plaintiff No. 1’s name, image,
likeness, identity, persona, distinctive celebration, reputation or goodwill for
the purpose of marketing the Impugned Film during the pendency of the
Suit.
72. It is clarified that the observations made in this Judgment are confined
to the adjudication of the present Application and shall not be construed as
an expression of opinion on the merits of the Suit.
73. The present Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.
TEJAS KARIA, J
NOVEMBER 06, 2026/ HK
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:NEELAM
SHARMA
Signing Date:06.11.2026
15:12:07
CS(COMM) 1156/2026 Page 41 of 41