In the judgment delivered in Case No.D2009-1247 (Ms.Barkha Dutt Vs. Easyticket], it has been held by the Work Intellectual Property Organizations (WIPO), the international agency governing internet domains, 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.
From the reading of the above said judgments, it is seen that if any person uses the name of a celebrity without his/her permission, the celebrity is entitled for injunction, if the said celebrity could be easily identified by the use of his name by the others. 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 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'.
Madras High Court
Mr.Shivaji Rao Gaikwad vs M/S.Varsha Productions on 3 February, 2015
