Bombay HC upholds stay on Shaadi Ke Director–Karan Aur Johar over violation of Karan Johar's rights
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday upheld the stay on the release of a movie, tentatively titled 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar' or 'Shaadi Ke Director Karan Johar', saying the name infringes upon filmmaker Karan Johar's personality and publicity rights.
A bench of Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice M S Karnik said Johar has garnered 'immense goodwill and reputation' in the entertainment industry in India and globally.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by one Sanjay Singh, maker of the movie, challenging a March order passed by a single bench of HC granting a stay on the film's release.
The single bench had passed the order on a plea filed by Johar against the movie and its title.
Johar's name has obtained a brand value, the court said on Wednesday. 'Karan' and 'Johar', when used together (in a title), point to the celebrity and filmmaker Karan Johar, it said.
HC said since Karan Johar's name has become his brand name, the director has the economic right to commercially exploit the same as per his discretion.
'The name 'Karan Johar' is solely associated with the respondent No 1 (Karan Johar) and forms a germane part of his personality and brand name,' the court said in its order.
The high court said that the courts in India have time and again recognised personality rights and publicity rights of public figures, including celebrities.
'The respondent (Johar) being a celebrity is entitled to the protection of his personality and publicity rights and can claim protection against unauthorised commercial exploitation by third parties,' the court said.
The high court also refused to accept the submission of the plaintiff Sanjay Singh that they were willing to add the word 'aur' (and) between the names 'Karan' and 'Johar' in the movie title. In its opinion, the court said, the use of the two names in any combination was sufficient to create confusion in the minds of the public.
'The appellant (Singh) cannot be allowed to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the respondent (Johar) in this manner,' the HC added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
12 Years of Raanjhanaa: Dhanush Debuts His New Look At The Film's Special Screening I WATCH
Harshvardhan Rane, Karan Johar & Surveen Chawla Serve Major Fashion Goals As They Get Spotted Bharti Singh, Ankita Lokhande, Vicky Jain & MORE Spotted On The Sets Of Laughter Chefs S02 I WATCH Akshay Kumar Being A Protective Father As He Flies Off With Wife Twinkle & Daughter Nitara I WATCH Karisma Kapoor's Ex-Husband Sunjay Kapur Passes Away At 53, Kareena & Saif Offer Condolences I WATCH
Time of India
11 hours ago
- Time of India
Karnataka assures security for 'Thug Life' release; producer told not to proceed till KFCC issue settled
'Thug Life' NEW DELHI: Reminded on Tuesday of its duty to uphold rule of law and protect citizen's right to free speech, Karnataka govt on Wednesday told the Supreme Court that if the film 'Thug Life' is released in the state theatres it will take every step to maintain law and order and provide security to those associated with screening and viewers. In an affidavit filed on the eve of the Thursday hearing before a bench of Justices Ujjal Bhuyan and Manmohan, the state govt through counsel D L Chidanand assured that 'in the event the producers of the film decide to release the movie in Karnataka, the state govt is duty bound and will give protection and security for such release and for the people connected therewith, including the cast, director, producers, the exhibitors, and the audience. ' It said the state has not imposed any restriction on the release of the movie 'Thug Life', which has been duly certified by the Central Board of Film Certification. However, it said during the June 3 hearing before Karnataka HC, the film producer Rajkamal Films International had given an undertaking to the HC that it 'will not release the movie in Karnataka till they resolve the issue with Karnataka Film Chamber of Commerce (KFCC).' by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Perdagangkan CFD Emas dengan Broker Tepercaya IC Markets Mendaftar Undo SC on Tuesday transferred the producer's petition from the HC to itself. KFCC, the apex body of Karnataka film industry, had written a letter to Hasan on May 30 expressing its displeasure at certain statements made by him at a promotional event and had sought his apology. The HC during the hearing had repeatedly asked why Hasan was so reluctant to apologize or express regret when public sentiment is hurt. In contrast, the SC bench of Justices Bhuyan and Manmohan on Tuesday had observed that 'The HC had no business to seek regret or apology. As a custodian of rule of law and protector of rights, it should have considered the issue of whether a CBFC cleared film be allowed to be released in theatres of the state… Public sentiment does not mean a gun is put to the head of the theatre owners to stop screening of the film.' On the threat of violence issued by a vigilante group, the bench had said, 'The Rule of Law demands that the film be released in the theatres of Karnataka. As democratic state, Karnataka cannot allow mobs to jeopardise the rule of law. The state must ensure that the rule of law prevails' In its affidavit, the Siddaramaiah govt told the SC that it is 'the duty and responsibility of the state govt to uphold the fundamental rights of its citizens and in maintaining the 'Rule of Law' in the state, and the state govt and its instrumentalities are committed in discharging such duties and protecting the fundamental rights of its citizens, including the fundamental rights of the stakeholders involved in the present issue. '
Indian Express
12 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kesari Chapter 2: Akshay Kumar's courtroom drama accidentally exposes Bollywood's handling of sexual misconduct
A few years ago, Karan Johar debuted his Dharmatic Entertainment banner with a Netflix film called Guilty. It remains memorable for two reasons; first, Kiara Advani is terrific in it, and second, it's perhaps the only time that Bollywood has addressed the #MeToo movement head-on. Guilty, which made solid use of the Rashomon effect, ended with a rather on-the-nose title card about Bollywood having turned a blind eye to the accusations made against some of its most prominent figures. Years later, their alleged crimes are essentially forgotten. Many of the accused continue to work freely, while several of those that raised their voices were quietly outcast. Entirely by accident, Johar's recent co-production, Kesari Chapter 2, turns out to be an accurate indictment of why, as a system, the industry failed its most vulnerable members. Directed by the debutant Karan Singh Tyagi, Kesari 2 is a particularly problematic example of post-truth cinema. It doesn't embellish, it fabricates; it doesn't deviate, it distorts. Marketed as a fact-based drama set in the aftermath of the Jallianwala Bagh massacre — the film's subtitle is 'The Untold Story of Jallianwala Bagh' — Kesari 2 invents a court case between the historical figure Sankaran Nair and the British Crown. In the movie, the British sympathiser Nair sues the Crown for genocide after experiencing an awakening. Nothing of the sort happened. In fact, he was the one who got sued. Imagine if Aamir Khan had tried to convince us that a group of Indian villagers actually beat British soldiers in a game of cricket; imagine if SS Rajamouli pretended like two major historical figures really had a dance-off. This is what Kesari 2 does. Also read – Jaat: Bollywood stars are incapable of laughing at themselves; if Himesh Reshammiya can do it, why can't Sunny Deol? At a time when history textbooks in schools are literally being rewritten, a movie like Kesari 2 is deeply irresponsible. Everybody involved needs to introspect: is this really something that they'd show to their children? What makes this enterprise hard to understand is that they could've simply stuck to the facts and achieved the exact same results. Kesari 2 doesn't reframe the British as heroes — although it wastes time in humanising the dastardly General Reginal Dyer — but it chooses to vilify them with lies even though it already had the truth on its side. How strange. It's like the film Major inventing sequences that depict the late Sandeep Unnikrishnan as a bigger hero than he already was. As if his real-life sacrifice wasn't dramatic enough for a movie. For all its failings as a courtroom drama, however, Kesari 2 exposes the farcical manner in which our systems operate. This is entirely accidental, mind you. The movie doesn't intend to do this. In fact, it's oblivious about the irony of professing free speech while actively spreading misinformation. In the wake of the #MeToo movement, organisations set up internal committees to investigate accusations made against men in positions of power. Many of them were given a clean chit and rehired in prominent roles, presumably in exchange of lucrative salaries. Their actions weren't forgotten, but conveniently brushed under the carpet. In Kesari 2, the Crown constitutes a 'Viceroy's Commission' to investigate the allegations made against Dyer. Sankaran Nair is inducted as a token Indian member into this committee. This is when he first witnesses the Crown's inhumanity. It is as if the character had been living under a rock his entire life. He watches silently as Dyer is let off without even a slap on the wrist. It's only when a renegade young lawyer played by Ananya Panday gives him a speech that Sankaran Nair has a change of heart. Coupled with the guilt he feels about letting down a young survivor of the massacre, he makes the decision to 'sue the Crown for genocide'. What follows is a typically melodramatic portrayal of courtroom proceedings. You could be forgiven for suddenly craving a bit of Sunny Deol during these scenes. Deep into the second act, the movie makes an entirely irrelevant detour into actual sexual misconduct territory, and chooses an objectively improper path. The scene begins progressively enough, when Panday's character is asked to cross examine a young British woman accusing an Indian rebel of rape. 'It's called sensitivity,' she says, when the defence asks why she's stepping up at this stage of the trial, having purely been a spectator thus far. And then, she proceeds to systematically disprove the witness' accusations. So much for sensitivity. Kesari 2 projects its only instance of sexual misconduct as a ploy by women against men. This, in effect, becomes its sole statement on the matter. Read more – Ae Watan Mere Watan: Heartbreaking, the worst film you've seen just made some strong political points And because of how the scene is staged, it's the woman who ends up being vilified, even though she was pressured into levelling the accusations by the male officers. This is just one of the many bizarre creative choices that the movie makes. Entire articles could be written on its other basic missteps — Akshay Kumar's Punjabi accent barges into the room a few times, characters frequently use contemporary lingo, and the legal tactics on display are so contrived that even Jolly LLB would avoid them — but let's leave these issues for later. There is gold in those hills, but Kesari 2 is digging in the wrong places. Post Credits Scene is a column in which we dissect new releases every week, with particular focus on context, craft, and characters. Because there's always something to fixate about once the dust has settled. Rohan Naahar is an assistant editor at Indian Express online. He covers pop-culture across formats and mediums. He is a 'Rotten Tomatoes-approved' critic and a member of the Film Critics Guild of India. He previously worked with the Hindustan Times, where he wrote hundreds of film and television reviews, produced videos, and interviewed the biggest names in Indian and international cinema. At the Express, he writes a column titled Post Credits Scene, and has hosted a podcast called Movie Police. You can find him on X at @RohanNaahar, and write to him at He is also on LinkedIn and Instagram. ... Read More
