NEELA FILM PRODUCTIONS PVT LTD V TAARAKMEHTAKAOOLTAHCHASHMAH.COM AND ORS.
Written by Maanya Chaturvedi, National Law University, Delhi
Introduction
The plaintiff, through its previous name of Neela Tele Films Pvt Ltd, is a celebrated television production house, with the show Taarak Mehta ka Ooltah Chashmah[1]. It is an extremely popular show, running since 2008, with over 4000 episodes, and is a widely recognized show broadcasted on Sab TV[2]. The plaintiff claimed full intellectual property rights over the show, and also had copyright registrations over various animated forms of the show, as well as trademark registrations over the characters. In light of alleged infringement of these intellectual property rights, there have been multiple defendants accused in the present case[3].
Defendant 1’s website was registered under the name https://taarakmehtakaooltahchashmah.com, and displayed artwork, characters etc of the show, without authorization. Defendant 2, 3 and 4 were alleged of selling merchandise bearing the characters’ likeness and dialogues, and selling it on e-commerce websites.
Defendants 5 to 9 ran YouTube channels which released deepfake, AI-generated images and videos of the show’s characters. Defendants 11 and 12 created video games based off the show and also published videos of the same. Defendants 14 and 15 recreated and used sets, images of characters etc, without authorization. Defendants 16 to 21 also engaged in publishing videos using the characters, with some, including Defendant 23, also including inappropriate materials as part of the distorted content[4].
Such use of the show and its characters, as well as how the defendants were profiting off it commercially, was the chief matter of contention. Further, the manipulation of the show’s image to create inappropriate material was also a matter of concern for the plaintiff, given the impact it could have on the source material’s reputation and public image[5]. Due to the widespread recognizability of the show and its characters, it was argued that manipulation and insertion of inappropriate elements, such as pornographic material, would cause damage to the goodwill and positive reputation built by the show over the years of its runtime on television.
This unauthorized usage was also allegedly causing financial loss to the plaintiff, as well as personal harm given the direct and known connection between the show and the plaintiff. Further, as the material was widely spread, it was very difficult for the plaintiff to take any action to protect their intellectual property[6].
The fundamental question of the case is whether the plaintiff can claim infringement of intellectual property, specifically over the characters of Taarak Mehta ka Ooltah Chashmah. It is necessary to keep in mind, the far-reaching popularity of the show, as well as the direct association of the characters with the show as a whole, including not just their images but also other aspects utilized by the defendants, such as famous dialogues and catchphrases.
As per the allegations, the actions of the various defendants would most prominently violate Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which protects the image, likeness etc of the characters created by the petitioner[7]. While characters specifically are not mentioned under the section, they have nonetheless been recognized as receiving protection under the act, in various cases such as Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books[8], Star India Pvt Ltd v Leo Burnett Pvt Ltd[9] etc, establishing precedent of preventing misuse of characters by unauthorized players. This was further emphasized in Disney Enterprises Inc v Pankaj Aggarwal and Ors[10], where the specific aspect of preventing unauthorized merchandise of highly commercially profitable fictional characters, was brought up by the court.
Most notably, the judgement mentions Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India and Ors[11], as submitted by the petitioner, where it is demonstrated that if ex parte ad interim injunction is not granted, in a case of misuse of a celebrity’s image or likeness, there will be irreparable loss caused to the plaintiff. This involves cases where an injunction is passed at the request of one party, without hearing the other party in trial, in order to prevent possibility of further damage which cannot be compensated through any other means[12].
The court upheld this judgement, and passed an order of ex parte ad-interim injunction, to prevent the creation and dissemination of unauthorized content featuring the show’s characters which infringed registered copyright and trademark. This especially included content which exploits the characters, as well as pornographic material.
It was further ordered that in the event of the content not being taken down, the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Technology, were required to contact the concerned Internet Service Providers and/or intermediaries through which the content was released, and have the relevant content suspended/removed. YouTube, specifically, was also to remove the offending videos upon notification, made at the liberty of the plaintiff[13].
Thus, the court has undoubtedly recognized the rights of the plaintiff over the characters, and the extremely detrimental effects, both financial as well as reputational, that the actions of the defendants have caused, and could cause in the future, if not stopped.
However, the judgement does not establish a clear principle as to how to deal with violation of personality rights with fictional characters specifically. While there is extensive precedent on trademarking of characters, previous judgements on personality rights focus on celebrities, who are real people, and their image. There are certain implications carried by the application of these rights to celebrities, which may not necessarily be carried over to fictional characters.
While fictional characters are linked to the creators, and can impact their image, they do not have their own image which they could gain profit or loss from. The stakes involved in their portrayal and potential misuse of their image, may not have an impact on the creator. Celebrities, on the other hand, depend on their image for their employability, and general public perception. Thus, the damage which may be caused by this misuse, is both financial as well as reputational, and can have more serious harm caused than it may to fictional characters, whose link to the creators may not even be well-known.
However, it is also a relevant consideration, that even if the impact is not as direct or severe, it can cause reputational and subsequently, financial damage, to the actors who portray them on-screen. The linking of the actors with the characters may cause problematic consequences, and detrimentally affect their employability. It could also cause a dent in the image of the IP as a whole, thus causing commercial difficulties for the entire production.
While there can be much more elaboration and clarification on such rights for fictional characters specifically, the judgement is a welcome one, given the changing technological landscape which leads to the creation of new problems. With huge strides made in the field of artificial intelligence, in the last few years, there has been a worrying uptick in the creation of deepfakes. How this affects intellectual property rights, is an increasingly important matters, and the judgement has demonstrated a clear way of dealing with the topic.
In many ways, it does deal with intellectual property rights concerning fictional characters, and establishes a definite precedent on how they must be treated, even if some aspects are not addressed. The intersecting of these rights, with concerns related to technology, are a crucial topic of consideration, and the judgement has been able address these, noting the kind of harm that they can cause, and making efforts to stop the same.
Conclusion
To conclude, the judgement is undoubtedly an important one, setting down principles on how to deal with infringement of personality rights for fictional characters. Despite certain relevant questions not being adequately expressed, it is nonetheless an extremely important verdict. As a judgement which protects rights over characters, an IP which has not only private but also public impact, it is crucial to have such measures to protect creation, and prevent negative consequences from the online manipulation which is speedily manifesting in new forms on the internet.
[1] Neela Film Productions Private Limited vs. TaarakMehtaKaOoltahChashmah.com & Ors. (2024) CS (COMM) 690/2024
[2] Ibid, para 26.
[3] Ibid pp 27-32
[4] Ibid pp 37-47.
[5] Ibid pp 48-50.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Section 13(1), The Copyright Act, 1957.
[8] Raja Pocket Books v Radha Pocket Books, 1997 PTC (17).
[9] Star India Pvt Ltd vs Leo Burnett (India) Pvt Ltd, 2003(2) BOMCR 655.
[10] Disney Enterprises Inc v Pankaj Aggarwal and Ors, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10166.
[11]Anil Kapoor v Simply Life India and Ors, CS(COMM) 652/2023.
[12] Ibid, pp 40-45.
[13] Neela Film Productions n(1), para 55.
