FACTS:
Plaintiff company was established in 1996 and the letters ‘DM’ reflect the initials of the firm. The firm was originally incorporated to manage the career of Mr Daler Mehndi.
Mr Daler Mehndi subsequently granted to the complainant, with effect from 13 November 1996, all his privileges, title and interest in his identity inherent in his privileges to publicity along with the trademark “Daler Mehndi” and goodwill conferred therein. Defendants were involved in the sale of dolls, which were inexpensive replicas and similar to the likeness of Mr Daler Mehndi. Defendants were importing the dolls from China and selling them in the Indian Market. Those dolls were manufactured in a way that they could sing few lines of the singer’s compositions and were sold as the “DALER MEHNDI” dolls.
D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd filed a lawsuit asking for the permanent injunction against the defendants, which restricted them from infringing their right to advertise and fake endorsement, leading to passing off. The plaintiff claimed damages and the return of the accounts.
Decision:
The court held that to claim injunction, the plaintiff needs to prove that the defendant had used his identity in such a way that it consists of its essential attributes. In the present case both the situations were met as the evidence depicted that the defendant had used Mr Mehndi’s identity and his attributes.
Further, the court explained that the defendant had used the plaintiff’s identity to increase the sale of the dolls by fusing the goodwill of the celebrity. The court said that the right to the publicity of the product lies solely in the hand of the creator. He had the authority to allow or not to allow any company or person to commercially exploit his likeness and personal attributes. In a democratic country like India, where all the citizens are given right to free speech, using anyone’s traits for personal benefit without the consent of that party infringes his fundamental right.
The court also stated that to claim for false endorsement, the plaintiff needs to prove that the actions of the defendant were such that they would mislead the public and will make them think that the concerned personality endorsed the product at issue. In the present case, it was very evident that the gift company had utilised Mr Mehndi’s goodwill and used his uniqueness which had given rise to the belief that, the plaintiff had some relations with the defendant. Either the plaintiff had authorized them or defendants had some personal contact with the plaintiff.
The court said that even if anyone uses any famous trademark or a similar trademark for services which have no relation with the services provided by the other person, though it doesn’t create any confusion still it may degrade the effectiveness and uniqueness of the trademark by diluting the power to indicate its source and hence, the person who used that trademark should be penalized. 
The court granted an injunction to the plaintiff.