Amitabh Bachchan Wins Decree Over Video-Call App, Quizbook And Posters Using His Image; Delhi HC Extends It To Anonymous Infringers

Amitabh Bachchan sued for, inter alia, infringement of his publicity rights, passing off and damages, alleging unauthorised commercial use of his name, photographs and persona by several defendants and unidentified infringers.

An ex parte ad-interim injunction was granted on 25 November 2022.

The plaintiff and defendants 1, 3, 5 and 8 later filed a written settlement application, under which those defendants acknowledged his rights, gave undertakings against future unauthorised use and agreed to a decree on specified prayers; the plaintiff waived other claims against them.

Defendants 2, 4, 6 and 9 did not appear or file written statements, and their right to do so had been closed. The plaintiff sought judgment against them and the John Doe defendants.

Order XXIII Rule 3 of the CPC permits a decree on a lawful compromise that is in writing, signed by the parties and complete enough to be embodied in a decree; the compromise may adjust the suit wholly or in part and operate only as to the parties to it.

Gurpreet Singh v. Chatur Bhuj Goel, (1988) 1 SCC 270, states that a compromise must be a completed agreement capable of being embodied in a decree.

Order VIII Rule 10 does not require judgment to be entered mechanically upon failure to file a written statement: under Asma Lateef v. Shabbir Ahmad, (2024) 4 SCC 696, judgment may be entered where no fact requires proof by reason of deemed admission, but disputed factual questions may require evidence; the power should be exercised cautiously, including to avoid inconsistent decrees.

Under Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382, publicity-rights infringement requires an enforceable right in the person’s identity or persona and identification of the person from the unauthorised use.

Rule 27 of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 also enables summary judgment in an appropriate case.

The Court found that the compromise application was written, signed, complete and voluntary, with no apparent ground to treat it as void or voidable; it therefore satisfied Order XXIII Rule 3 and could be decreed as to the settling defendants alone.

As to defendants 2, 4, 6 and 9, the Court considered the default under Order VIII Rule 10 alongside the substance of the plaint, rather than treating non-filing as automatically decisive.

The pleaded uses involved Bachchan’s name and photographs for commercial gain, without consent and in a manner suggesting endorsement; the Court found the relevant publicity-rights elements met and no disputed factual issue requiring trial or ex parte evidence.

It also extended the decree to the John Doe defendants, given the pleaded continuing pattern of anonymous misuse and the existing interim injunction against them.

It also allowed the Order VIII Rule 10 application and decreed the suit against defendants 2, 4, 6, 9 and 10 in terms of paragraphs 76(a)–(c) of the plaint, granting liberty to the plaintiff to bring fresh proceedings for a fresh cause of action.

The interim injunction merged with the decree, and the suit and pending applications were disposed of.