Scammers used Amitabh Bachchan’s voice and image to run a fake “KBC lottery” fraud, sell unauthorised merchandise, and squat on his domains. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte injunction protecting his personality rights — and ordered the URLs taken down and the phone numbers blocked.
The case
In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors [CS(COMM) 819/2022], Justice Navin Chawla granted an ad interim ex parte injunction to the veteran actor, protecting his likeness, voice and pictures against a fake Kaun Banega Crorepati lottery fraud and various other scams misusing his identity to defraud the public.
What the defendants were doing
Counsel alleged violations of Bachchan’s publicity rights (recognised in Titan Industries v. Ramkumar Jewellers). The defendants included:
- Rajat Nagi — websites/apps misappropriating his photos and likeness;
- Rana Partab Singh — WhatsApp messages using his photo to tell people they’d won the KBC lottery;
- Manoj Publications — exploiting association with him to sell general-knowledge books;
- Swag Shirts — unauthorised merchandise bearing his photos;
- Tamatina — wall posters with his likeness; and
- registrants/registrars of amitabhbachchan.com and amitabhbachchan.in.
The suit sought a permanent injunction against using his name (and variations — Bachchan, Big B, AB), voice, image or any attribute, plus ₹2,00,01,000 damages, a John Doe order for future infringements, and directions to the DoT and Ministry of IT to take down URLs and block phone numbers.
The ruling
The court found it couldn’t be seriously disputed that Bachchan is a well-known personality, and that a prima facie case and balance of convenience favoured him — the defendants using his status for commercial gain without authorisation, risking grave, irreparable harm to his reputation. It granted the ex parte injunction and directed:
- the Ministry of IT to ensure ISPs take down the listed links/websites; and
- the DoT to ensure telecom providers block the phone numbers used to circulate the infringing messages.
Why it matters
Beyond protecting the actor, the order shields the public from a scam that preyed on his credibility — a real concern as deepfakes and impersonation spread. It also feeds the growing body of Indian personality-rights jurisprudence, even as the outer limits of these rights, and what confers celebrity status, remain to be settled.
The takeaways
- Personality rights protect name, voice, image and likeness — including variations (Big B, AB).
- Ex parte injunctions plus John Doe orders target both known and unknown infringers.
- Courts order platform action — ISP takedowns and telecom number-blocking.
- The public is protected too — from scams trading on a celebrity’s credibility.
Frequently asked questions
What did the Delhi High Court protect for Amitabh Bachchan? His personality/publicity rights — name (and variations), voice, image and likeness — against misuse in a fake KBC lottery scam and unauthorised merchandise.
What is a John Doe order? An order against unknown/unnamed defendants, allowing action against future or unidentified infringers — which Bachchan’s suit also sought.
Can courts order websites and phone numbers blocked? Yes — the court directed the Ministry of IT to have ISPs take down the URLs and the DoT to have telecom providers block the numbers used for the scam.
Are personality rights recognised in India? Yes — courts recognise and enforce them (as in Titan v. Ramkumar and this case), though their precise scope and limits are still developing.
Useful official resources
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999
- Cyber Crime reporting — Government of India