HC upholds stay on film Shaadi Ke Director Karan Aur Johar for violating Karan Johar's rights

First Post

08-05-2025

The court said on Wednesday that Karan's name has obtained brand value. When used together, Karan and Johar point to the celebrity and filmmaker Karan Johar. read more
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 Karan has garnered 'immense goodwill and reputation' in the entertainment industry in India and globally.
The court dismissed the appeal filed by Sanjay Singh, the movie's maker, challenging a March order passed by a single bench of the HC granting a stay on the film's release.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
The single bench had passed the order on a plea filed by Karan against the movie and its title.
The court said on Wednesday that Karan's name has obtained brand value. When used together, Karan and Johar point to the celebrity and filmmaker Karan Johar.
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 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, 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.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
'The appellant cannot be allowed to exploit the reputation and goodwill of the respondent in this manner,' the HC added.