Delhi High Court frames key questions in Aaradhya Bachchan\u2019s case, examining family reputation, fake news, personality rights and intellectual property law.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court on Thursday framed several questions of law in a suit filed by Aaradhya Bachchan, daughter of actor Abhishek Bachchan and granddaughter of megastar Amitabh Bachchan, over allegedly misleading and defamatory content circulated about her online. The court is examining, among other issues, whether the reputation associated with a famous family name can extend across generations and whether the circulation of fake news can amount to a violation of intellectual property rights.<\/p>\n
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani raised the issue during the hearing while discussing the legal protection attached to a person's reputation. The judge questioned whether the reputation associated with a prominent family name could be compared with the goodwill attached to a trademark and, if so, how far such protection could extend.<\/p>\n
\u201cThe value of trademark and reputation in the trademark arises from the fact that a product or service has been rendered. Now, this is somewhat contextually different when you are talking about a person. A certain last name has a reputation because of the achievements, the eminence in a certain field of work, etc. So, does that reputation, you are couching it as virtually as a trademark, does that flow down generationally? If so, up to what point?\u201d Justice Bhambhani remarked.<\/p>\n
The Court subsequently framed three broad questions that it will consider in the matter. It asked whether a family name, when associated with a reputation similar to that of a trademark, can retain that reputation across generations and, if so, to what extent.<\/p>\n
The Court will also examine whether fake news, even when it is \u201cof egregiously despicable nature\u201d, can constitute an intellectual property rights violation and, if it does, what specific category of intellectual property rights may be involved.<\/p>\n
Another question concerns the relationship between defamation and intellectual property law. The Court will consider whether the legal concepts of slander, libel or other forms of injury to reputation can be treated as intellectual property rights.<\/p>\n
\u201cThese are the general questions in my mind. This is not exhaustive,\u201d the Court clarified.<\/p>\n
Aaradhya Bachchan, through her father Abhishek Bachchan, approached the Delhi High Court in 2023 against several YouTube channels and unidentified individuals, commonly referred to as John Doe defendants. The suit sought to prevent the publication of content that allegedly tarnished the Bachchan family name, invaded their privacy or made defamatory claims about Aaradhya.<\/p>\n
The case specifically referred to multiple YouTube videos that made false claims about Aaradhya\u2019s health. Some videos allegedly claimed that she was seriously unwell and had been admitted to a hospital, while another claimed that the minor had died. The content also allegedly accused her family of failing to provide her with timely medical treatment.<\/p>\n
In April 2023, the High Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from publishing material concerning Aaradhya\u2019s health. At the time, Justice C Hari Shankar stressed that children should be protected from the circulation of misleading information about their physical or mental well-being.<\/p>\n
\u201cEvery child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect, be she the child of a celebrity or the child of a commoner. Dissemination of misleading information relating to a child, especially as regards her physical or mental wellbeing, is something which is completely intolerable in law,\u201d the judge had observed.<\/p>\n
The latest hearing also saw a discussion on the expanding scope of personality rights. Justice Bhambhani observed, \u201cThe concept of personality rights is acquiring amoebic proportions. Everything is personality rights. But whose personality rights?\u201d<\/p>\n
Advocate Pravin Anand, representing Aaradhya, argued that the case involved the reputation of the Bachchan family as a whole. Responding to the Court's questions about extending trademark-like protection to personal reputation, Anand referred to the broader scope of passing-off law.<\/p>\n
\u201cReputation is not only in a trademark. Passing off law protects much wider than trademarks. The whole family's pictures are used, words are used to give an impression that this young girl has died and has cancer. Both fake, causing so much of harm. Using the name Bachchan and pictures of the family. Abhishek Bachchan is also a party to the matter,\u201d he said.<\/p>\n