TEAM CODE: MA_402

CONCORDAT 4.0
4th NATIONAL ADR COMPETITION, 2024

BEFORE THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

UNDER SECTION 21 OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILIATION ACT, 1996

IN THE MATTER OF

Mr. Lakshay Sukumar & Ors. …………………………………..…CLAIMANT

AND

TruePeople Pvt. Ltd. ………………………………………………RESPONDENT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE CLAIMANT

UPON THE SUBMISSION TO THE HON’BLE CHIEF JUSTICE AND HIS

COMPANION JUSTICES OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1

Table of Abbreviations……………………………………………………3

Index of Authorities……………………………………………………….4

CASES………………………………………………………......

STATUTES………………………………………………………

BOOKS………………………………………………………….

MISCELLANEOUS…………………………………………….

Statement of Jurisdiction………………………………………………….6

Statement of Facts………………………………………………………….7-8

Issues Raised……………………………………………………………….9

Summary of Arguments……………………………………………………..10

Arguments Advanced/Pleading…………………………………………....11-22

Prayer…………………………………………………………………….….23

TABLE OF ABBREVIATION

AIR All India Reporter

Page 2
 SC Supreme Court

Pvt. Ltd. Private Limited

No. Number

IPR Intellectual Property Rights

I.A. Interim Application

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES

Page 3
i. Maula Baux vs. Union of India (1969) 1970 AIR 1955 (per J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A.N.
Grover) (India)
ii. M/s. Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd (2004) AIR 2004 SC 3540 (per Ruma
Pal, P. Venkatarama Reddi) (India)
iii. Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals (2007) AIR 2007 SC 2563 (per H.K. Sema,
P.K. Balasubramanyan) (India)
iv. Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. (1986) AIR1987DELHI13 (per S.B. Wad, J.) (India)
v. Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (also known as Mr Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Productions (2015) 598 of 2014
(per R. Subbiah) (India)
vi. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023) I. A.- 18237/2023-18243/2023 (per Pratibha M.
Singh) (India)
vii. Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 2662/2011 (per Manmohan Singh) (India)
viii. Arun Jaitley vs Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011) I.A. No. 11943/2009 &
17485/2010 (per Manmohan Singh) (India)
ix. Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs. D.A.P. & Co. & Anr. (2017) IA No.8432/17 (per S.P. Garg) (India)
x. Krishna Kishor Singh vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors. (2023) I.A. 10551/2021 (per C. Hari Shanker)
(India)
xi. DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Baby Gift House (2010) MANU/DE/2043/2010 (per Amit Bansal)
(India)
xii. Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shatrughan Kumar Aka Khesari Lal Yadav & Ors (2023)
C.M.Nos.2068-2069/2023 (per Manmohan) (India)
xiii. Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc. (1994) UKHL7 (Lord Nicholls) (UK)

STATUTES

i. The Indian Contract Act, 1872

ii. Arbitration and Conciliation Act 1996
iii. Trademark Act, 1999
iv. Copyright Act, 1957
v. The Constitution of India, 1949

BOOKS

i. Contract & Specific Relief by Avatar Singh

ii. Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) by MK Bhandari 2021

Page 4
iii. Introduction to the Constitution of India by DD Basu
iv. Commentary On the Arbitration and Conciliation Act by Justice SB Malik and Fali S. Nariman

MISCELLANEOUS

Rendering India into an Arbitration Friendly Jurisdiction-Analysis of the Proposed Amendments to

the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 < Rendering India into an Arbitration Friendly
Jurisdiction-Analysis of the Proposed Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 3
NUJS Law Review 2010 (heinonline.org) >

The 1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act: A Step Toward Improving Arbitration in India, <The
1996 Arbitration and Conciliation Act: A Step Toward Improving Arbitration in India Student Note
6 Hastings Business Law Journal 2010 (heinonline.org)>

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The claimant has approached the Hon’ble Tribunal of Arbitration, Karnataka under Section 21 of the

Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996.

Page 5
STATEMENT OF FACTS

The Brollywood industry, a dominant force in global cinema, is known for its vibrant storytelling,
massive productions, and star-studded casts. Among the crème de la crème of Brollywood is Mr.
Lakshay Sukumar and Mr. Mahrukh Khan, two of the biggest names in the industry today. Both actors
have made significant impacts at the box office this year with their blockbuster releases, cementing
their positions as the industry's leading men. Mr. Lakshay Sukumar, known for his action-packed
roles, has had a series of hits with his ongoing franchise movies, such as Phir Ho Gaya Peri Peri,
Welcome Inside, and Khiladi 628. Mr Mahrukh Khan, on the other hand, is an actor, and an
entrepreneur and also owns one of the most successful production houses of Brollywood named

‘Yellow Lemon Entertainment’. His soccer team recently won the Premier League, adding to his fame.
Page 6
His movies, Sach Much Hota Hai and Kabhi Happy Kabhi Sad continue to capture the hearts of
audiences worldwide.

On March 21, 2023, both Mr Lakshay Sukumar and Mr Mahrukh Khan entered into a Brand

Ambassador Contract with Mr Bambani’s TruePeople Pvt Ltd, which included an exclusivity clause

that guaranteed their sole representation in advertising campaigns for TruePeople's products,
particularly a cardamom-flavored mint called Mavil. This contract was seen as a significant milestone
for both actors, as it promised to enhance their brand image and marketability. However, Mavil had
been clouded in controversy with rumours circulating that the product contained tobacco, raising
concerns about its addictive properties.

The situation escalated when it was discovered that TruePeople had featured Mr Mallaya in an
advertisement for Davil, a clove-flavored mint, without the participation of Mr Khan and Mr
Sukumar. This breach of the exclusivity agreement prompted immediate legal action from the
claimants. Their legal team issued a stern notice to TruePeople, demanding an end to all promotional
activities related to Davil that did not include them, asserting that their contractual rights had been
egregiously violated.

Both Mr Mahruk Khan and Mr Lakshay Sukumar expressed deep concerns about the financial and
reputational damage stemming from this breach. They feared that their association with TruePeople
could lead to public confusion regarding their brand identity and diminish their marketability in future
projects. With upcoming film releases on the horizon, they were acutely aware of the potential fallout
from this situation and insisted that the legal notice be kept confidential to protect their box office
revenues.

Despite attempts at mediation to resolve the conflict amicably, tensions remained high. The claimants
uncovered alarming information regarding the imminent launch of the Davil advertisement, which
further fueled their apprehensions about brand dilution and infringement. They were particularly
distressed by reports that Mr Lion Fronz had been asked to imitate Mr Mahrukh Khan's signature
move in these advertisements, which they viewed as a direct threat to his carefully cultivated public
image.

In light of these developments, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sukumar invoked the arbitration clause in their
contract with TruePeople Pvt Ltd, seeking redress for what they perceived as a breach of contractual
obligations. They requested a stay on any future advertisements featuring Davil until the matter was
Page 7
resolved and included Mr. Lion Fronz and Mr. Mallaya as parties in the arbitration proceedings due
to their involvement in the potentially infringing advertisement. The Claimant also filed for damages
based on misrepresentation and breach of good faith, arguing that TruePeople had misled them
regarding the status of advertisements.

As the arbitration process commenced, both claimants prepared to present their cases before an
arbitrator in Bangalore. They braced for the challenges ahead while hoping for a resolution that would
uphold their rights as exclusive brand ambassadors and protect their reputations in the industry.

ISSUES RAISED

1. Whether the claims of Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar for breach of contract are
valid and if so, then whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar seek an Interim stay on
the release of the future advertisements of Davil?

2. Whether Lion Fronz, as a third party, can be deemed a necessary party in these arbitration
proceedings?

3. Whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s rights under intellectual property law have been infringed by the

imitation of his signature move, entitling him to damages or injunctive relief for harm to his public
image and persona?

4. Whether TruePeople's breach directly caused the financial and reputational losses claimed by Mr.
Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar?

Page 8
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

1. Whether the claims of Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar for breach of contract are
valid and if so, then whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar seek an Interim stay on
the release of the future advertisements of Davil?

Yes, Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar have valid claims for breach of contract against
TruePeople Pvt Ltd based on a binding agreement and clear evidence of breach through unauthorized
advertisements featuring other actors.

2. Whether Lion Fronz, as a third party, can be deemed a necessary party in these arbitration
proceedings?

Yes, Lion Fronz, as a third party, can be deemed a necessary party in these arbitration proceedings.
Lion Fronz's involvement in this advertisement constitutes a direct violation of their contractual
rights, making him a necessary party in these proceedings to address the ramifications of this breach.

Page 9
3. Whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s rights under intellectual property law have been infringed by the

imitation of his signature move, entitling him to damages or injunctive relief for harm to his public
image and persona?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that Yes, Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s rights under intellectual

property law have been infringed by the imitation of his signature move, entitling him to damages or
injunctive relief for harm to his public image and persona.

4. Whether TruePeople's breach directly caused the financial and reputational losses claimed by Mr.
Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that Yes, TruePeople's breach directly caused the

financial and reputational losses claimed by Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

1. Whether the claims of Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar for breach of contract
are valid and if so, then whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar seek an
Interim stay on the release of the future advertisements of Davil?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that yes, Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar

have valid claims for breach of contract against TruePeople Pvt Ltd based on a binding agreement
and clear evidence of breach through unauthorized advertisements featuring other actors. The Indian

Contract Act, 1872 defines a term ‘contract under Section 2(h) as an agreement which is enforceable

by law, which means that the agreement in question between the parties is reasonable and therefore
valid and any advertisements, containing unauthorized actors, is a breach of this contract.The Brand
Ambassador Contract dated March 21, 2023, explicitly outlines the obligations of TruePeople Pvt
Ltd to include Mr. Mahrukh Khan, Mr. Lakshay Sukumar, and Mr. Mallya in all advertising
campaigns for their products, including Mavil and other products of the company as ambassadors.
It is clear after, Ms. Tamara received a call from her school friend, Mr. Lion Fronz, who is also the
son of a renowned veteran star of Brollywood. With palpable excitement, he shared the thrilling news

Page 10
that he had been selected to feature in an advertisement alongside Mr. Mallaya for Davil, a clove-
flavored mint produced by TruePeople Pvt Ltd, that both Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay
Sukumar, were not a part of the advertisement alongside Mr. Mallaya. The weight of the situation
became clear, that TruePeople Pvt Ltd. featured other actors along with Mr. Mallya without their
permission and they felt that this was a blatant breach of trust and contract by TruePeople Pvt Ltd.
According to Clause 12 of the Brand Ambassador Contract which provides exclusivity to all the
parties that they will feature in the advertisement of the product and other products of the company.
However, if any other third party is to be featured in the advertisement, then TruePeople Pvt Ltd
should obtain prior written permission from the parties. Therefore, with respect to the exclusivity
clause only parties to the Brand Ambassador Contract dated March 21, 2023, had guaranteed
exclusive representation for all three ambassadors in its advertising campaigns.
In the case of Maula Baux vs. Union of India (1969) (1970 AIR 1955)1, The Supreme Court held that
the respondent, the Union of India, must compensate the appellant the amount directed by the
Supreme Court and also interest from the date of the suit till the payment of the compensation.
Further, the court held that the appellant was in breach of contract and that there was a resultant

inconvenience to the respondent due to the appellant’s default.

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that upon considering the above arguments together, Mr.

Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar can seek an Interim stay on the release of future
advertisements of Davil.
Section 9 of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, allows parties to request any interim measures
from the court before or at the course of the arbitration. Interim relief is granted when these three
main essentials are present.

• prima facie there is a case;

• the balance of convenience lies with the aggrieved party who is seeking the relied; and

• irreparable damage or injury may be caused if the interim relief is not granted.
In this situation, there exists a prima facie case indicating a clear breach of contract by TruePeople
Pvt Ltd. The Brand Ambassador Contract, executed on March 21, 2023, explicitly grants Mr.
Sukumar and Mr. Khan exclusive rights to represent TruePeople in all advertising campaigns for their
products and other related products, including Mavil and Davil. The decision by TruePeople to
proceed with advertisements featuring Mr. Mallaya and Mr. Lion Fronz is a direct violation of the
exclusivity clause within this contract.

1
Maula Baux vs. Union of India (1969) 1970 AIR 1955 (per J.C. Shah, V. Ramaswami, A.N. Grover) (India)
Page 11
There is irreparable harm that Mr. Sukumar and Mr. Khan would face if TruePeople were allowed to
release these advertisements without their participation. If advertisements for Davil are launched
featuring other actors while excluding Mr. Khan and Mr. Sukumar, it would severely damage their
reputations and marketability as brand ambassadors. They risk losing public trust and could face
significant backlash from fans and industry stakeholders alike. This potential damage is not merely
speculative; it could lead to lost opportunities in future endorsements and film roles that are vital to
their careers in the highly competitive Brollywood industry.
The balance of convenience favors granting an interim stay on these advertisements. Preventing
TruePeople from releasing further advertisements would not cause significant harm to the company;
rather, it would protect Mr. Sukumar and Mr. Khan from severe reputational damage and financial
loss that could arise from being excluded from promotional activities they are contractually entitled
to participate in. In M/s. Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd (2004) (AIR 2004 SC
3540)2, it was held that when there is a conflict between two parties, the one who will suffer greater
harm if an injunction is not granted should prevail. In this case, my clients stand to suffer far greater
harm than TruePeople if these advertisements proceed without them.

This allows Mr. Khan and Mr. Sukumar to request an injunction to prevent TruePeople Pvt Ltd from
releasing advertisements that violate their exclusive rights as brand ambassadors. This advertisement
indicating a direct breach of the brand ambassador contract executed on March 21, 2023, explicitly
grants my clients exclusive rights to represent TruePeople in all advertising campaigns for their
products, including Mavil and other products.
Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar will face irreparable harm if this advertisement is
released as Both Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar have already lost lucrative film
opportunities due to the comparatively increased popularity of Mr. Mallaya and Mr. Lion Fronz,
leading to massive financial losses. These lost opportunities compounded their concerns, as they
feared further reputational damage might jeopardize future collaborations with major studios and
filmmakers. The looming threat of a public legal battle weighed heavily on their minds, as they feared
it could irreparably tarnish their names and careers in the highly scrutinized world of Brollywood.
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals (2007) (AIR 2007 SC 2563)3
The court emphasized the necessity of granting interim relief to maintain the status quo when
irreparable harm could occur if no action is taken. This aligns with the claimants' argument that
allowing TruePeople to release advertisements would cause irreparable harm to their reputations and

2
M/s. Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions Pvt Ltd (2004) AIR 2004 SC 3540 (per Ruma Pal, P. Venkatarama
Reddi) (India)
3
Adhunik Steels Ltd. v. Orissa Manganese & Minerals (2007) AIR 2007 SC 2563 (per H.K. Sema, P.K.
Balasubramanyan) (India)
Page 12
careers. The Adhunik Steels court expressed concern that when a party shows a real possibility of
suffering irreparable damage due to the conduct of another party, in such circumstances; there should
be no hesitation in taking steps to avoid such damage. Similarly, Mr. Khan and Mr. Sukumar can seek
an interim stay, allowing TruePeople to go ahead with the advertisement of Davil without their
involvement would cause irreversible damage to their reputations and careers as brand ambassadors.
2. Whether Lion Fronz, as a third party, can be deemed a necessary party in these arbitration
proceedings?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that yes, Lion Fronz, as a third party, can be deemed a

necessary party in these arbitration proceedings. The primary concern for the Mr Mahrukh Khan and
Mr Lakshay Sukumar is that TruePeople Pvt Ltd has allegedly breached the exclusivity clause in their
Brand Ambassador Contract. This contract explicitly guarantees that Mr Mahrukh Khan, Mr Lakshay
Sukumar and Mr Mallaya will be the sole representatives of the brand in its advertising campaigns.
By allowing Lion Fronz to participate in a competing advertisement for Davil, TruePeople has not
only undermined this exclusivity but has also potentially diluted the brand image that both actors
have worked hard to cultivate. Lion Fronz's involvement in this advertisement constitutes a direct
violation of their contractual rights, making him a necessary party in these proceedings to address the
ramifications of this breach.
Adding Lion Fronz as a necessary party is crucial because he bears liability for contributory
infringement or unjust enrichment resulting from his participation in the Davil advertisement. There
are only three basic elements to contributory infringement: -
(i) When the person knows of the infringement,
(ii) When the person materially contributes to the direct infringement,
(iii) When the person induces the principal infringer to commit infringement, and
(iv) Continuing to supply its product to someone who the defendant had actual or constructive
knowledge was engaging in trademark infringement.
With regard to contributory infringement, it is clear that there is no exception to the rule since the
contributory infringer cannot act bona fide or in good faith.
Mr. Mallaya reached out to both Mr. Mahrukh and Mr. Lakshay, confirming the imminent release
date of the advertisement. He disclosed that several newcomers in the film industry had also been
approached by TruePeople Pvt Ltd for potential endorsements without prior written permission
indicating consent of parties as per clause 12 of the Brand Ambassador Contract. Alarmingly, Mr
Lion Fronz had also been asked to imitate a signature move famously associated with Mr Mahrukh
Khan, further exacerbating their fears of brand dilution and infringement as the signature move was
associated with Mr Mahrukh Khan for the past 20 years in the Brollywood industry.

Page 13
The Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, par, Section 21 specifically underlines that no arbitration
proceeding shall be conducted without all the parties involved in the dispute.

If Lion Fronz is allowed to continue with his endorsement activities, it would lead to further financial
losses and reputational damage for them. His actions are interpreted as an endorsement of a product
that they are contractually bound to represent exclusively, thereby complicating the contractual
agreements surrounding liability and damages. This potential overlap in responsibilities necessitates
his inclusion in the arbitration to ensure all parties who may be held accountable are present.
As per Section 51 (a) (ii) of the Copyright Act of 1957, concerned with contributory infringement, a
person who persuades another to infringe a copyright by doing any act, shall be liable for contributory
infringement of copyright, only if the infringer knew or had reasonable grounds for supposing that
the copyright would be infringed. The infringer must have brought in or aided the direct infringer or
must have contributed in some significant way (not remotely or incidentally) to the primary
infringement. In this way, internet intermediaries are also responsible for the same.
The action of Lion Fronz imitating the signature move of Mr Mahruk Khan, per se, constitutes
personality rights infringement under the purview of trademark law. A man of average intelligence
and imperfect recollection of memory would associate Mr Mahrukh Khan with the product, causing
him significant loss and directly affecting his socio and economic status, affecting his reputation in
the industry.

3. Whether Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s rights under intellectual property law have been infringed by

the imitation of his signature move, entitling him to damages or injunctive relief for harm to
his public image and persona?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that Yes, Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s rights under intellectual

property law have been infringed by the imitation of his signature move, entitling him to damages or
injunctive relief for harm to his public image and persona.

The personality rights are an individual’s ability to protect his / her identity along the lines of a

property or privacy right. Such rights are very important for celebrities as different companies would
use their names, photographs or even voice for commercials without their permission in an attempt
to boost sales. Therefore, in a bid to protect their personal rights, individuals who are in the public
eye as well as famous people should trademark their name.
In relation to trademarks, it is assumed that the primary purpose of a trademark is to facilitate the

question of the mark’s origin, which, in turn, informs the consumer of the quality and characteristics

of the goods marked with it. However, it is also about the protection against unwarranted commercial

Page 14
appropriation of the attributes of one’s persona, or regulating the access to the worth of one’s self.

Outrage for contempt does not involve concerns such as whether consumer confusion was caused by

such ‘protection’, the concern is primarily about the use of one’s persona in situations that have not

been authorized. The depletion of distinctiveness of an identity, in turn, also creates an impression

that the plaintiff has either approved, or that the plaintiff is affiliated to the defendant’s goods or

services which in itself is a deceptive misappropriation. All these aspects contribute to why the court
came to the conclusion that the remedy in question was available under trademark law. In fact, it can
be said that if one is to seek protection for personality rights within the context of a trademark, then
these elements must be present.
Individuals can register their name, voice, autograph, etc. in accordance with the Trademark Act
1999. Though, Section 14 of the Trademark Act restricts the use of personal names and images. In
case a person uses any of the names of public figures or any images of them derogatorily, then that
person gets beneficial provisions under this Section.
As previously mentioned, Mr Mallaya reached out to both Mr Mahrukh and Mr Lakshay, confirming

the imminent release date of the advertisement, which they weren’t part of. He disclosed that several

newcomers in the film industry had also been approached by TruePeople Pvt Ltd for potential
endorsements. Alarmingly, Mr. Lion Fronz had been asked to imitate a signature move famously
associated with Mr. Mahrukh Khan, further exacerbating their fears of brand dilution and
infringement.
Where there is a conflict of interest and morals, copyright comes in handy. In India, generally, the
Copyright Act of 1957 recognizes and protects the moral rights of its citizens. This rights are confined
only to authors and performers of works, that is actors, singers, musician, dancers, creators e.t.c. In
layman's terms when a person is famous, it is that person the fame resides in, and that person is
entitled to enjoy the proceeds of the fame. There shall be no appropriation of his or her identity or
characteristic for commercial purposes without permission. Through this act not only moral rights are
safeguarded but also personalities are shielded. It is a settled principle of common law that remedies

arise from the cradle of rights, that is, ‘Ubi Jus Ibi Remedium’. When an individual strives for human

rights, it extends beyond just the right to existence or freedom of speech. It also entails, in its essence,
the inherent right to live with dignity; a concept that shall be rendered infructuous and moot if it is
not necessarily accompanied by a reasonable degree of right to privacy and protection against the

blatant misuse of one’s name, style, and personality.

Page 15
In the case of Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. (1986) (AIR1987DELHI13)4, the court
decided that the plaintiff, despite having assigned all her rights to the defendant, still had moral rights
in relation to the work. Moral rights are present in all literary works as well as in the works of films
and documentaries. It also stated that some changes in the process of making a film based on the book
may be done but it should not be detrimental to the standing of the author. Regarding the relationship
of the parties, the court ruled that the clauses in the agreement should not be in violation of section

57 of the Copyright Act. Finally, the defendants also agreed to take the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s

novel out of the credits of the movie. The plaintiff will not possess any rights pertaining to the movie.
In the case of Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs. D.A.P. & Co. & Anr. (2017) (IA No.8432/17)5, Indian
cricketer Gautam Gambhir filed a suit against the defendant because he found that the defendant had

used his name as a tagline for the restaurants ‘by Gautam Gambhir’. The cricketer denied the

allegations of the defendant arguing that his name was used in the suggested tagline without any
relation to them.
In some cases, Section 57 of the Copyright Act 1957 can be applied, which provides protection under
the ground of moral rights. Further, in some other cases, the court can be seen to have applied Section
17(b) of the Copyright Act 1957, for example, in Titan Indus. Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012),
(S(OS) No.2662/2011)6. In this instance, the problem was that the defendants had apparently designed
some billboards that featured Amitabh and Jaya Bachchan two popular Indian icons endorsing the

defendant’s jewellery store. The plaintiff raised the issue of personality rights infringement by virtue

of a contract made (where the personalities transferred their personality rights to the plaintiff);
Additionally, the plaintiff has also instituted this action seeking an order of injunction against the
defendant for the alleged infringement of her copyright, wrongful appropriation of personality rights
and damages for passing off. The court ruled that as provided by the provisions of the Copyright Act,
1957 the subject matter relates to the advertisement in question and for the purposes of this action,
the party to sue is the plaintiff, which can indeed be supported by the endorsement contracts all of
which attribute copyright to the plaintiff. So the acts of the defendant, who is an advertising hoarding

proprietor reproducing the plaintiffs likeness in a manner that is akin to the advertisements of the

goods in question and in relation to the commercial use by the defendants are in violation of copyright.
Here, the court sought to resolve a dispute regarding the rights of the plaintiff, primarily in the
capacity of the first author of the disputed work and taking into account the dimension of the

4
Mannu Bhandari v. Kala Vikas Pictures Ltd. (1986) AIR1987DELHI13 (per S.B. Wad, J.) (India)
5
Mr. Gautam Gambhir vs. D.A.P. & Co. & Anr. (2017) IA No.8432/17 (per S.P. Garg) (India)
6
Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) 2662/2011 (per Manmohan Singh) (India)
Page 16
performer’s personality. Copyright being the most obvious right in this respect, the court went on to

outline also the causes of action for the infringement of the right of publicity, which included the first
aspect of the infringement being objectively assessed as validity in which, the claimant must possess
a right over his or her image or likeness which is enforceable and the second aspect being,

identifiability, in which the claimant’s image and or likeness must be distinct and recognizable from

the defendant’s wrongful act. Where the personality is recognizable, Mr. Mahrukh Khan has been

using his signature move for over twenty years, for instance, an encroachment into the right of
publicity does not have to assert confusion or distortion. These factors make it clear that fraud or
deception is not a prerequisite for an infringement claim but rather, a violation of the right to public

persona is caused when a certain person’s persona is recognizably exploited without permission by

another party for business purposes.

The press seems to believe, as the media always does, that there is an inherent right under Article 19

of the Indian Constitution’s freedom of the press, which enables them to collect and disseminate any

information about public figures that can be said to be in “public interest” and “concern.” This has

been a point of contention among the stars and public figures because it encroaches on their private
lives and the right of privacy. Each individual has a right to maintain his or her existence in a way

that others do not find objectionable. The use of a person’s persona for promotional activities should

not be subject to control by anyone else without the consent of that person.
In 2015, the Madras High Court in Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (2015) (598 of 2014)7,
while dependent on the two rulings above, held that the personality right vests on those individuals

who have reached the level of celebrity. Also, it stated that ‘Infringement of right of publicity requires

no proof of falsity, confusion, or deception, especially when the celebrity is identifiable and held that

the plaintiff would prima facie be entitled to an order in its favor.

The Delhi High Court attempted to address previously unaddressed topics in its ruling in the case of
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023) (I. A.-18237/2023-18243/2023)8. These are the
personality rights connected to a person's identity, including their name, voice, picture, likeness, and
manner of speaking and delivering dialogue, as well as their gestures, signatures, and so on.
"Reputation and fame can transcend into damaging various rights of a person, including his right to

7
Shivaji Rao Gaikwad (also known as Mr Rajinikanth) v. Varsha Productions (2015) 598 of 2014 (per R. Subbiah) (India)
8
Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors. (2023) I. A.- 18237/2023-18243/2023 (per Pratibha M. Singh) (India)
Page 17
livelihood, right to privacy, right to live with dignity within a social structure, etc." the court said in
its ruling in favour of the plaintiff. Without a doubt, the freedom to information, news, satire,
legitimate parody, and genuine criticism is protected as free speech when it comes to a well-known
individual. It would be unlawful, though, if it went too far and caused the person's reputation,
personality, or other characteristics to be tarnished, blackened, or threatened. "The Plaintiff's name,
likeness, image, persona, etc. deserve to be protected, not only for Plaintiff's own sake but also for
the sake of his family and friends who would not like to see his image, name, and other elements
being misused, especially for such tarnishing and negative use," the court added.

In Titan Industries Ltd. v. Ramkumar Jewellers (2012) (2662/2011), the Delhi High Court went on to
describe a celebrity's "publicity right" as "the right to control commercial use of human identity is the
right to publicity." Guidelines concerning liability for breach of the right of publicity were also
established by the Court in this judgement.
Celebrities can also use other legal avenues to protect their personality rights, such as:
Copyright: Images are subject to copyright
Criminal offences: Likeness is protected under offences relating to impersonation
In Arun Jaitley vs. Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011) (I.A. No. 11943/2009 &
17485/2010)9, the Delhi High Court noted that an individual's online reputation or popularity is not a
reflection of their offline reputation. The court also pointed out that the name falls into the category
where it has developed unique characteristics in addition to personality. According to the
circumstances, Mr. Mahrukh Khan's signature move is what sets him apart.
The plaintiff, the father of the late well-known Indian actor Sushant Singh Rajput, filed a plea seeking
an ex-parte interim injunction against the use of his son's name, caricature, and lifestyle in upcoming
films like "Nyay" in the recent case of Krishna Kishor Singh vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors. (2023) (I.A.
10551/2021)10.
The phrase "no one has the right to represent his goods in the name of another person" refers to
passing off. Under trademark law, passing off is recognised as a tort. In order to obtain the benefit of
passing off, the plaintiff must demonstrate that his personality attribute was misrepresented and the
harm that resulted from the use of his personality trait. The Trademark Act's Section 27 refers to
"passing off."
DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Baby Gift House (2010) (MANU/DE/2043/2010)11, in this case,
musician Daler Mehndi filed a lawsuit alleging that his rights to commercially exploit his identify

9
Arun Jaitley vs Network Solutions Private Limited and Ors Case (2011) I.A. No. 11943/2009 & 17485/2010 (per
Manmohan Singh) (India)
10
Krishna Kishor Singh vs. Sarla A Saraogi & Ors. (2023) I.A. 10551/2021 (per C. Hari Shanker) (India)
11
DM Entertainment Pvt Ltd v. Baby Gift House (2010) MANU/DE/2043/2010 (per Amit Bansal) (India)
Page 18
and reputation had been violated through a corporation he had created and that was the assignee of
his rights. He said that Baby Gift House was importing dolls from China and reselling them in Delhi
markets that bore the singer's resemblance. Because the dolls could sing a few lines of his well-known
rhythms, the Likeness was unsettling. The singer received relief after the court applied the passing-
off tests.
In reference to the relief, the Anton Piller order should be used in this case as there is a high probability
that TruePeople Pvt Ltd will destroy crucial evidence in his custody for the sole purpose of defeating
the ends of justice. To prevent this from happening, Mr Mahrukh Khan on an ex-parte application,
even without any notice being given to TruePeople Pvt Ltd, can approach the Court to enter the
premises of TruePeople Pvt Ltd for the sole purpose of preserving the evidence. Furthermore, an
Anton Piller order acts as a mandatory injunction to meet the ends of the situation, thereby allowing
Mr Mahrukh Khan to conduct a search and seizure to seek evidence.
Moreover, in addition to equitable relief, Mr Mahrukh Khan is entitled to seek compensatory

monetary damages by proving their damages. This should be done by looking at (i) the defendant’s

profits from using the trademark in question, (ii) damages sustained by the plaintiff as a result of the

defendant’s infringing activity, (iii) the plaintiff’s costs incurred through “corrective advertising” to

restore the value of the trademark damaged by the defendant’s infringement, and (iv) reasonable

royalties the defendant would have paid, had the trademark been properly licensed.
4. Whether TruePeople's breach directly caused the financial and reputational losses claimed
by Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar?

It is submitted before the Hon’ble Arbitrator that Yes, TruePeople's breach directly caused the

financial and reputational losses claimed by Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar. The
Brand Ambassador Contract, executed on March 21, 2023, explicitly granted my clients exclusive
rights to represent TruePeople in all advertising campaigns for their products, including Mavil and
other products. It is mentioned in the Brand Ambassador Contract that the parties will be featured
together in the product advertisement campaign and for other products of the Company which also
includes Davil. However, TruePeople's decision to proceed with advertisements for Davil featuring
Mr. Mallaya and Mr. Lion Fronz without any prior written permission from Mr. Mahrukh Khan and
Mr. Lakshay Sukumar constitutes a blatant violation of this exclusivity clause and is a direct breach
of contract.
Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar had already lost lucrative film opportunities due to
the comparatively increased popularity of Mr. Mallaya and Mr. Lion Fronz, leading to massive
financial losses. The competitive nature of the Brollywood industry means that any deviation from

Page 19
their established brand image can lead to significant economic repercussions. These lost
opportunities compounded their concerns, as they feared further reputational damage might
jeopardize future collaborations with major studios and filmmakers.
Moreover, the damage to the brand's reputation cannot be minimized. Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr.

Lakshay Sukumar’s public standing is inevitably dependent on the realization of the brands they

endorse. By permitting Davil’s adverts to be issued without their consent, TruePeople has not only

violated the terms of their contract but has also risked their well-managed public image. This is

complex by the fact that there is provision for Mr. Lion Fronz to mimic Mr. Mahrukh Khan’s famous

pose in these commercials, which also fragments his brand and causes trouble as to who is the actual
face of the product.
This decision of TruePeople Pvt. Ltd. is a direct financial and reputational loss to Mr. Mahrukh Khan
and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar which makes them entitled to seek damages from the company. As per
clause 19 of the Brand Ambassador Contract, it is mentioned The Party which violates any clause of
this Contract shall be liable to pay damages to the other Party. If the Brand Ambassador violates any
clause, it is liable to pay to the Company a sum of Rs. 10,00,000/-. If the Company violates any
Clause, the Company is liable to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- each to the Brand Ambassador.
Here, the Company is liable to pay Rs. 15,00,000/- each to both Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay
Sukumar as the company has breached the exclusivity clause of the contract. Compensation for loss
or damage resulting from a violation of contract is covered by section 73 of the Indian Contract Act,
1872. Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar are entitled to seek damages from the company
for breach of contract. When a contract breaches, the party who suffers from the breach is entitled to
compensation from the party who breached it for any loss or damage that naturally resulted from the
breach in the normal course of things, or that the parties knew were likely to result from the breach
when they made the contract.
On September 5, 2023, the Delhi High Court resolved the case of Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs.
Shatrughan Kumar Aka Khesari Lal Yadav & Ors (2023) (C.M.Nos.2068-2069/2023)12, which dealt
with breach of contract and damages under Section 73 of the Indian Contract Act, 1872. The
principles governing the calculation of damages resulting from a contract violation were highlighted
in the ruling.
The court also held that Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd has established a contract with Shatrughan
Kumar (Khesari Lal Yadav) for the purposes of recording music albums and/or their audio-video

12
Global Music Junction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Shatrughan Kumar Aka Khesari Lal Yadav & Ors (2023) C.M.Nos.2068-2069/2023
(per Manmohan) (India)
Page 20
reproduction and distribution. But in breach of the contract, the defendant did not perform his
responsibilities towards the plaintiff, causing severe loss which the plaintiff sought to claim. The
Court opined that the party however aggrieved in this case is entitled to be compensated for the losses
that naturally arise out of the breach of contract or that were in the forethought of the two parties
making the contract at the time of entering the contract in accordance with section 73 of the Indian
Contract Act.

Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc. (1994) UKHL713

In his dicta, Lord Nicholls affirmed that damage to the reputation of professional persons, or persons
carrying on business, frequently causes financial loss. Nonetheless, the distinction is fundamentally
sound, and when awarding damages for breach of contracts, courts take care to confine the damages
to their proper ambit: making good financial loss.

In summary, the principle which Malik v Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. sets out
is that an innocent party can recover damages for reputational loss occasioned by breach of contract,
if the innocent party demonstrates that he has suffered financial loss as a result of the breach.

Further, the court pointed out that the damages claimed must be in relation to the breach and must be
substantiated with evidence. In this instance, Global Music Junction also provided evidence that they
suffered losses as a result of the defendant's inability to supply the music albums within the schedule
provided in the contract. The decision further clarified that losses arising from the breach of contract,
such as lost profit, may be compensated to the injured party, provided it can be demonstrated that
such loss was not only expected but also caused by the breach.

13
Spring v Guardian Assurance Plc. (1994) UKHL7 (Lord Nicholls) (UK)
Page 21
PRAYER

In light of the above submission, the Claimant requests the tribunal to:
Declare that
The tribunal has jurisdiction to hear the present case
Adjudge that

i. TruePeople Pvt Ltd has breached the Brand Ambassador Contract, thereby violating the
exclusivity clause outlined in the agreement.
ii. Grant interim stay on the release of any future advertisements for Davil until this matter is
conclusively resolved through arbitration proceedings.
iii. Mr. Mahrukh Khan and Mr. Lakshay Sukumar seek compensation for the financial losses as a
direct result of TruePeople's breach of contract.
iv. We also pray for the inclusion of Mr. Lion Fronz as a necessary parties in these arbitration
proceedings.
v. Any other relief or remedy deemed just and appropriate in the circumstances of the case.

Page 22