Cheating case filed against Malayalam actor Nivin Pauly, director Abrid Shine for this reason
Good news for Azim Premji as Wipro beats estimates, its Q1 FY26 net profit rises to Rs...
Connie Francis, whose 1962 song Pretty Little Baby is now a viral sensation, dies at 87
Pepe Price Prediction: 10x Still In Sight, But Analysts Say This Token Has More Room To Run
Solana Price Prediction: Could SOL Hit $500 By Year-End or Will RTX Continue To Outshine?
Tata Sons carries forward Ratan Tata's legacy, to invest $400 million in ..., details here
Little Pepe Crypto Price Prediction: LILPEPE Successfully Listed on CoinMarketCap
Has Jasprit Bumrah become India's unlucky charm in Tests? Viral stats ignites debate
Who are Druze minority and why is Israel attacking Syria to protect them?
IndiGo Delhi-Imphal flight returns shortly after takeoff due to mid-air technical snag
Meet India's fastest runner who broke 100m sprint record in just...; he is from small village in...
Forex Robot Trends: Automation Defining the Future of Trading
Who was Chandan Mishra? Bihar gangster who was shot dead by 5 gunmen in Patna hospital
Louis Vuitton's new Lifebuoy-shaped bag is as expensive as any car, check out SHOCKING price
Priyanka Chopra's passionate kiss with Nick Jonas on the beach goes viral; watch video
29 soldiers killed in BLA attack, Is Pakistan Army losing war against militants in Balochistan?
At least 60 killed in massive fire at Iraq shopping mall, horrific video surfaces
PAC cosmetics: Performance meets the Indian beauty requirements
KKR star all-rounder announces retirement from international cricket, his name is....
Barack Obama and Michelle Obama finally address divorce rumours, say 'It was...'
Bengaluru small vendors are saying 'NO' to UPI, demands 'Only' cash, are in fear due to...
Meet woman, first IAS officer to officially appoint a female driver, she is from…, her name is..
What is 'PAN-PAN' call that Delhi-Goa IndiGo flight pilot made before diverting flight to Mumbai?
Donald Trump hints at India-US trade deal: 'very close to...'
DNA TV Show: Digvijaya Singh's post on Kanwar Yatra stirs row
How will teams qualify for LA28 cricket? Details emerge as sport returns to Olympics after 128 years
Delhi-Goa IndiGo flight makes emergency landing due to a mid-air engine failure
This actress has been banned from driving for 6 months after speeding offense
Will Rishabh Pant, Jasprit Bumrah play in 4th Test against England? Report makes BIG claim
Anil Ambani's Reliance Infra, RPower make BIG move to raise Rs 18000 crore through...
Who is Aditya Saurabh? Cracked UPSC with impressive AIR, became IRS officer, now arrested for...
Delhi set to launch India's first net-zero e-waste park in...; its cost is Rs...
BIG statement by US President Donald Trump on India-US trade deal, says, 'We're going to...'
US' BIG statement on Israeli strikes in Syria's capital Damascus, says, 'We are very...'
LSG owner Sanjiv Goenka makes stunning overseas move, signs England legend for his franchise
ITR Filing 2025: Don't panic if you receive Income Tax Department notice, take THESE steps...
Tesla Debuts in India: Model Y SUV costs almost double than in US, China, Germany, check prices here
Wearing jeans can get you jailed in THIS country, fashion is treated like crime here due to...
BOLLYWOOD
The court found that the unauthorized use of Johar's name and personal attributes in the film Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar violated the director's personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy.
On Friday, March 7, the Bombay High Court denied the release of the film Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar, stating that the title and content of the film violated filmmaker and producer Karan Johar's privacy and personality rights, as well as infringed upon his brand value. Justice RI Chagla said that releasing a movie with such a title would inevitably lead people to directly associate it with the Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham director.
In June 2024, Karan Johar approached the High Court, requesting an injunction to prevent the film's producers, Indiapride Advisory Pvt Ltd, from releasing Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar. He argued that the title infringed upon his personality, publicity, and privacy rights, and contended that "unless his consent is obtained for using his personal attributes, such as his name and profession, these rights are violated."
Johar informed the court that the filmmakers had not responded to a cease-and-desist notice he had issued on June 6, 2024, instructing them not to use his name in the movie in any form. Emphasizing that he had no involvement with the film, Johar stated that the filmmakers were attempting to exploit his goodwill and reputation by using his name to mislead the public.
The Ae Dil Hai Mushkil director also claimed that the movie's script included defamatory comments and insinuations about him. He further noted that the script indicated it was an "adult category film" and warned that if released with references to him and his name, it would damage his reputation. The court sided with Johar and issued a stay on the film's release on June 13, 2024.
In December 2024, Indiapride Advisory filed a countersuit, requesting the lifting of the stay order. Advocate Ashok M Saraogi, representing the defendant, claimed that Johar waited until the last minute to approach the court for an ex-parte objection, despite all arrangements for the film's release already being in place. He also argued that Johar’s name had not been used directly and stated that the filmmakers were willing to make necessary changes to the film if required.
In response to the countersuit, Karan Johar stated that the filmmakers were fully aware of the ongoing legal proceedings but continued with the release arrangements. He argued, "By intentionally using my name, the defendant has violated my personality rights, privacy rights, and infringed upon my brand value."
Ruling in Johar's favor, the bench granted an injunction against the film's release on Friday. The court found that the unauthorized use of Johar's name and personal attributes violated his personality rights, publicity rights, and right to privacy. It also noted that merely altering or modifying the film would not be sufficient to prevent potential confusion. Additionally, the bench rejected the defendant's argument that Johar had delayed taking legal action.