Hyderabad Court Restrains Infringement Of Actor Chiranjeevi's Personality Rights; Says His Voice, Image & Titles Are His 'USP'

A Hyderabad Court in an interim order last month, restrained various media platforms, YouTube channels, clothing companies and other entities from using names and titles associated with former state minister and Telugu actor Chiranjeevi for commercial use, thereby protecting his personality rights.

In doing so the court held that if the actor's reputation was damaged due to unsolicited associations it could not be compensated monetarily.

The court of Chief Judge, City Civil Court (Hyderabad) Sri S Sadidhar Reddy held:

"The claim of the plaintiff regarding his film career and his fame cannot be disputed. He is one of the most recognisable faces in Telugu Film Industry as well as Southern Film Industry. He is also well-known across India as a Film Star..."

The trial court further referred to various judgments of the Delhi High Court on personality rights such as orders passed in cases of actors Jackie Shroff, Anil Kapoor, Abhishek Bachchan as well as judgments of the Madras High Court in actor Rajnikanth's case.

The trial court thereafter said:

"Because of his fame, the stage name of the plaintiff as well as various titles associated with him such as, MEGA STAR, CHIRANJEEVI, BOSS, ANNAYYA, CHIRU and MEGA STAR CHIRU, and his voice and image and the other attributes that can be used to identify him are part of his personality as a film actor and artist. It is his USP and is well recognised in the general public. Therefore, the contention that any product or image or video or meme containing his face or any of the titles associated with him or any of the other personality attributes would instantly be associated with him is prima facie tenable. Consequently, any such product or image or video or meme which portrays him in a negative right or associates him with any negative information would also be associated with him, even though, he had not permitted the use of his personality for the propagation of such information or for sale of such products or in the design of such products".

The court noted the plaintiff's categorical assertion that he had not granted any permission or license to the defendants for the "use of his personality by them".

"Therefore, plaintiff had made out a prima facie case," the court said.

The order was passed in the actor's application for interim relief in his main lawsuit, seeking ad-interim injunction against the defendant entities for infringing upon the actor's "personality/publicity rights" by utilising directly, indirectly and exploiting or misappropriating his personality for commercial or personal gains.

The plaintiff's counsel argued that the defendants are using the actor's images and stills from various films and the various names associated with the actor such as MEGA STAR, GANG LEADER etc., on various merchandise such as T-shirts, Wall-posters and so on and selling them in the open market through online portals as well as physical retail shops without permission.

It was argued that the actor's image has been used to create photographs and videographs and memes using Artificial Intelligence (AI) Technology and this misuse of the personality of the plaintiff has caused him severe social and economic harm.

The court said that the images appear to have been created by "morphing them" using the face of the actor. It said that the images are also used for creating various videos.

"This can be used not only for commercial purposes, but also for propagating political ideas or anti-national ideas or for salacious or pornographic purposes. Hence, the contention that if such use is made the damage cause would be irreparable is prima facie acceptable.In view of the above, plaintiff is entitled for ad-interim injunction. Considering the nature of the use made of the personality of the plaintiff, ordering notice would make the petition infructuous considering the large number of defendants and the speed at which the images and videos can be propagated in social media and the continued commercial use. Hence, notice is dispensed to defendants No.1 to 33 and 36.," the court added.

The court however said that due to a categorical stipulation under Section 80 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, no ad interim order can be passed against the Government (Union Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and Department of Telecommunications, (Government of India) defendant 34 and 35 respectively) without giving due opportunity, since in this case till date, notice is not served on the Government.

Issuing notice to all the defendant entities, the court restrained defendants 1-33 and 36 from infringing the actor's personality and publicity rights by utilising in any manner directly or indirectly or by using or exploiting or misappropriating the actor's personality by using the various names and titles associated with the actor or using his voice or image or any other attribute of his personality.

The matter is listed on October 27.

Case title: Konidela Chiranjeevi v/s Mad Monkey Store and Others

I.A. No.6275 of 2025 in O.S.No.441 of 2025

Counsel for plaintiff: S. Nagesh Reddy assisted by Zainab, Nazeer and Shakti.

Click Here To Read/Download Order