The bench headed by Justice Amit Bansal of Delhi High Court said that the use of names or images of celebrities for art, satire, news or music is permissible as a facet of the right of freedom of speech and expression would not infringe the celebrity’s right to publicity.
While rejecting the interim relief to Dream 11’s subsidiary and Singapore-based entity Digital Collectibles PTE Limited in its suit against Mobile Premier League (MPL) and an application Striker. Digital Collectibles carries its business worldwide and in India under the trade name Rario.
Justice Amit Bansal said,
“In my opinion, use of celebrity names, images for the purposes of lampooning, satire, parodies, art, scholarship, music, academics, news and other similar uses would be permissible as facets of the right of freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India and would not fall foul to the tort of infringement of the right of publicity,”
Case Brief -
In the said matter, earlier in February, Rario filed a plea in the Delhi High court to prevent rivals MPL and Web 3 fantasy platform Striker from using caricatures and identifiers - such as names and surnames - it had licensed from some sports persons under exclusive deals to offer them as non-fungible tokens (NFTs) on its platform.
In its interim order, Justice Bansal said that the right of publicity cannot be seen as an “absolute right in India” in the absence of specific legislation, while also adding that it cannot be infringed merely on the basis of a celebrity being identified or the defendants (MPL and Striker) make commercial gains.
“The extent of the right of publicity also has to be considered in the context of the ‘right to freedom of speech and expression’ protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. Even if the right of publicity were to be considered to be an absolute right in India, it still must be subservient to Article 19(1)(a),” the court noted.
“In my considered view, the use of the name and/or the image of a celebrity along with data with regard to his on-field performances by OFS platforms is protected by the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. It is a settled position of law that protection under Article 19(1)(a) extends to commercial speech as well. Therefore, even if the defendants are using players’ names, images and statistics for commercial gain, this would be protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India,” the court said in its order.
“Even on the parameter of balance of convenience and irreparable harm, I am of the view that these factors are in favour of the defendants and against the plaintiffs. An injunction granted at this stage would result in the closure of the business of defendant no.2 (Striker) and would cause huge financial losses not only to defendant no.2 but also to the users of the Striker platform,” the court said.
Website designed, developed and maintained by webexy