The Madras high court on April 16 dismissed an appeal filed by actress Tamannaah Bhatia, upholding a single judge’s decision to reject her claim for Rs. 1 crore in damages against soap manufacturer Power Soaps Ltd.
A division bench of Justices P. Velmurugan and K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi ruled: “Using an actress’ photographs on cosmetic products after the expiry of an endorsement agreement constitutes a clear violation of her personality rights, right to publicity and right to privacy. Such acts amount to unauthorised commercial exploitation enabling the actress to file a law suit for damages and permanent injunction. However, the burden lies on the plaintiff to produce the best evidence, such as the products themselves showing, the photos were used for promoting the products and the defendants have nexus for using the pictures/photos of the actress without her permission after the expiry of the endorsement agreement.”
The appeal arose from the dismissal of her suit against Power Soaps and its advertising agency, in which she sought damages of Rs. 1 crore and permanent injunction restraining use of her photographs, videos and likeness for commercial purposes after expiry of her brand ambassador agreement in October 2009. She alleged that despite refusing to extend the one-year agreement, the company continued to use her pictures in advertisements and product packaging in late 2010 and early 2011. The company denied the allegations. Examining the evidence, the court found that the actress’ case relied on documents which failed to establish any purchase of the products or a link between the allegedly infringing wrappers and the company. The bench held that the actress failed to establish any nexus between the wrappers bearing her photographs and the products of the company. It also held that reliance on an online listing was insufficient to prove that the company had unauthorisedly published her pictures.
The bench concluded that Tamannaah had failed to prove any unauthorised use attributable to the company. Finding no infirmity in the single judge’s decision, the court dismissed the appeal with costs and closed the connected miscellaneous petition.