Over the past three years, a string of legal battles has emerged in India, bringing to light the infringement of personality rights among some of the country’s most well-known public figures. From Bollywood luminaries Amitabh Bachchan (2022), Anil Kapoor (2023), and Jackie Shroff (2024) to journalist Rajat Sharma (2024), the unauthorized use of celebrity identities has sparked a broader conversation on the gaps in India’s legal framework.
In 2025 alone, similar cases have surfaced involving BharatPe’s founder Ashneer Grover, esteemed cardiologist Devi Prasad Shetty, cricketer Shikhar Dhawan, and the late Ratan Naval Tata, chairman emeritus of the Tata Group.
Personality rights – also known as publicity rights – refer to an individual’s ability to control the commercial use of their identity, including their name, image, likeness, voice, and other distinctive personal attributes. However, India lacks dedicated legislation to safeguard these rights. Instead, protection is cobbled together through a patchwork of legal provisions, including the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Copyright Act of 1957, and common law doctrines such as ‘Passing Off’ and Article 21 of the Constitution, which guarantees the Right to Privacy.
“The rise of digital and social media platforms such as Instagram, YouTube, and Facebook has significantly amplified the influence of celebrities, influencers, and public figures,” said Abhishek Chansoria, Principal Associate at Saraf and Partners. “This has allowed them to monetize their personal brand through endorsements and collaborations, prompting them to take proactive steps in protecting their identity, image, and voice from unauthorized use.”
Under Indian law, trademarks primarily serve to protect names, logos, and symbols that distinguish the source of goods or services. “Their primary function is to prevent consumer confusion by ensuring that only the rightful owner may use a distinctive mark in commerce,” explained Siddharth Chandrashekhar, an advocate at the Bombay High Court.
Copyright, on the other hand, safeguards original creative works. “The Copyright Act of 1957 protects literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, as well as cinematographic films and sound recordings. However, it shields only the ‘expression’ of an idea, not the idea itself,” said Germaine Pereira, a partner at Solomon & Co.
The doctrine of ‘Passing Off’ applies when a trademark is unlawfully used in a way that misleads the public into believing that a product or service is associated with a different, often more established, entity. In such cases, “the plaintiff must prove misrepresentation, deceit, and damage to their brand’s goodwill,” Pereira added.
In one landmark case, D M Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2012), the Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the unauthorized use of singer Daler Mehndi’s images, setting a precedent for recognizing personality rights in India. Another high-profile instance involved the International Cricket Council (ICC) seeking legal recourse in 2003 to prevent third parties from using cricketers’ images without authorization during the Cricket World Cup.
For a name to be granted trademark protection in India, it must be widely recognized and associated with a specific individual or entity. “While a generic name like ‘Abhishek’ may not qualify for trademark protection, ‘Abhishek Bachchan’ could, due to its strong public association with the Bollywood actor,” Chansoria explained.
To secure a trademark, individuals must apply to the relevant registry and, in some cases, present evidence demonstrating their ownership and distinctiveness. A successful trademark is initially valid for 10 years but can be renewed indefinitely.
Experts advise that the moment an individual’s name, persona, or likeness is misused, they should issue a legal notice demanding that the offending party cease and desist. “Public figures should also make a public statement calling for an apology and correction,” Chandrashekhar recommended.
However, not all cases result in favorable rulings for celebrities. In 2017, cricketer Gautam Gambhir took legal action against a Delhi-based restaurant that used the tagline ‘By Gautam Gambhir.’ The court ultimately ruled in the restaurant’s favor, finding no evidence of misrepresentation or deception.
Emerging technologies pose a new and formidable challenge to personality rights. The rise of artificial intelligence, particularly deepfake technology, has made it easier than ever to manipulate an individual’s image and voice.
“The misuse of AI presents a significant legal gray area,” Chansoria noted. “Currently, India lacks specific laws to address AI-generated content, but existing statutes on defamation, fraud, and copyright infringement could serve as legal recourse.”
Digital platforms such as YouTube and Instagram have begun implementing tools to detect and remove copyrighted material, but similar measures for AI-generated content remain underdeveloped. Until robust regulatory frameworks are established, enforcing personality rights in the digital age will remain an uphill battle.
At present, Article 21 of the Indian Constitution provides the closest semblance of protection for personality rights, though it does not fully address the commercial aspects of identity misappropriation. Experts argue that stronger legislative safeguards are necessary to provide comprehensive protection against unauthorized use and exploitation.
“Infringement cases can be difficult to enforce without prior court recognition and substantial evidence,” Chansoria emphasized. “Moreover, fair use exceptions – such as news reporting and parody – further complicate the legal landscape.”
To better safeguard their rights, public figures are encouraged to register domain names, include explicit clauses in endorsement contracts, and monitor digital platforms for unauthorized use. As technology continues to evolve, the conversation around personality rights is likely to intensify, prompting calls for a clearer and more robust legal framework to protect individuals from exploitation in the digital era.