Madras high court stays unauthorised use of Kamal Haasan’s image, name

CHENNAI: Madras high court has restrained a Chennai-based merchandise company and John Doe (unknown entities or persons) from unlawfully exploiting the personality of actor-politician Kamal Haasan by selling merchandise bearing his image or name, including screen names.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorty granted the interim relief on Monday, while admitting a suit moved by Kamal Haasan, seeking to protect his personality rights and prevent unlawful exploitation of his personality, including his name, image, and abbreviation “KH”.


“This order will not, however, stand in the way of caricature, satire, or other forms of permissible creative expressions,” the court said. “...strong prima facie case is made out. Therefore, the respondents are restrained from creating false images of the plaintiff and depicting the same through any media until the next date of hearing,” the court added.

The court also restrained the merchandise company from selling merchandise bearing Kamal Haasan’s image or name, including screen names attributed to the plaintiff, without his consent or endorsement until the next date of hearing.

In view of the second respondent being John Doe (unknown entity or persons), the judge directed publication of the order in an English daily with wide circulation to notify unknown infringers.

According to Kamal Haasan, he enjoys exclusive personality and publicity rights over attributes such as his name, Kamal, KH, image, likeness, voice, signature, and distinctive dialogue delivery style. He alleged the Chennai-based company operated websites selling unauthorised merchandise such as T-shirts prominently featuring his name and photographs, falsely suggesting endorsement or association.

Apart from this, unidentified persons sold merchandise on e-commerce platforms using his likeness on social media, creating AI-generated and deepfake images and videos, some of which were vulgar or defamatory. “Apart from monetising such content through YouTube advertising and related revenue streams, these acts cause confusion and commercial exploitation, dilution of reputation, and moral harm,” his counsel S Vijayan Subramanian said.

Such acts amounted to violation of his personality and publicity rights, passing off and unfair competition, and infringement of moral rights under the Copyright Act, he added. Therefore, he wanted the court to grant an omnibus injunction against any such unauthorised use of his personality rights and publicity rights.