PERSONALITY TRADEMARKS: EXPLORING THE LIMITS OF  TRADEMARK LAW

Imagine building a career around your perfectly curated persona and character traits just to end  up getting infringed by someone profiting out of your imagery. Mr. Jaikishan Kakubhai Shroff, popularly known as Jackie Shroff, a well-celebrated Indian actor, found himself in a similar  situation thus proceeding with a lawsuit seeking protection of his name, image, likeness,  persona, voice and other “distinctive attributes” on 15th May 2024.[1]

INTRODUCTION  

A person’s personality is a set of unique characteristics and traits that sets him apart from others.  Personality Trademark refers to a person’s legal right to control and profit from the commercial  use of their name, likeness, image, voice, signature, gestures, mannerisms, or other distinctive  personal characteristics. It is often referred to as right to publicity, which protects an  individual’s identity from unauthorised commercial exploitation.[2] Personality rights are  governed by the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows the registration of names, voices,  signatures, and other “personal indicia” if they are distinctive and capable of distinguishing  goods or services.  

This registration aids in preventing unauthorised use that might harm their brand or reduce their  persona’s market value. Maintaining a celebrity’s marketability and public image depends on  the distinctive qualities that make up their brand, such as stage names, photos and other  distinguishing traits.[3] The Delhi High Court in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v.  The Peppy Store & Ors. CS(COMM)-389/2024 restrained the Defendants from infringing the  Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights by utilizing or misappropriating the Plaintiff’s name  “Jackie Shroff” and other sobriquets including “Jackie”, “Jaggu Dada” for any commercial  purpose without the Plaintiff’s consent.[4] 

The growing commercial value of “personality” is evident across multiple domains, from brand  marketing to individual career success. In marketing, brand personality i.e., the set of human  characteristics attributed to a brand, has become a critical tool for differentiation in saturated  markets.[5] The current legal landscape of personality rights in India is lacking specific 

legislation which would be solely dedicated to these rights. Rather, the protection is offered by  court rulings. Through a number of important cases, the judiciary has contributed significantly  to the definition of personality rights. For example, the Delhi High Court acknowledged the  right to regulate the commercial use of human identity in Titan Industries Ltd v. Ramkumar  Jewellers. Later in Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022, a celebrity’s right to control the  commercial use of their persona was highlighted.[6] 

UNDERSTANDING “PERSONALITY” IN COMMERCIAL CONTEXT  

Taylor Swift has filed over 300 trademark applications in the US alone through her company,  TAS Rights Management, LLC. Internationally, WIPO’S Global Brand Database shows 438  listings across at least 16 jurisdictions at the time of writing. These trademarks span everything  from her name and signature phrases to song titles, tour names, and even the names of her three  cats. Each trademark reflects a deliberate choice to safeguard what matters most to her brand. Fellow musicians like Beyoncé, Billie Eilish, and Rihanna had also converted their brands into  comprehensive, multi-dimensional assets.[7] 

Popular brands and artists commercialise their personality to build assets in the long run.  Commercial exploitation of attributes of an individual’s personality, such as name, voice and  likeness, is an overgrowing problem of modern advertising and marketing where the economic  value of a person’s public persona is leveraged to promote products and services. Personality  can be both natural or constructed. The primary objective of trademark law is to identify the  source of goods or services, ensuring consumers can distinguish one company’s products from  another in the marketplace. This helps prevent consumer confusion and protects the goodwill  and reputation associated with a brand or person in cases of personality exploitations.  

CAN PERSONALITY FIT WITHIN TRADEMARK LAW?  

The World Intellectual Property Organisation defines trademark as a sign capable of  distinguishing the goods or services of one enterprise from those of the other.[8] This sign can  include a device, brand, heading, label, ticket, name, signature, word, letter, numeral, shape of  goods, packaging or combination of colours etcetera.[9]“Trade mark” means a mark capable of  being represented graphically and which is capable of distinguishing the goods or services of  one person from those of others and may include shape of goods, their packaging and  combination of colours.[10] The essential requirements for a trademark, as established under the  Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, include distinctiveness, the capability of graphical  representation, and the ability to distinguish goods or services from those of others.  

Under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, there are several provisions through which a celebrity can  take charge of various attributes of their personality. A name is protected under the very  definition of ‘trademark’ and celebrities such as Shah Rukh Khan, Priyanka Chopra, Ajay  Devgn, and Amitabh Bachchan, on account of their goodwill and reputation, are registered  proprietors of their respective names.[11] 

Personality traits are subjective, evolving and inseparable from the individual. The examination  of whether a personality satisfies trademark requirements involves assessing if the unique  attributes of an individual, such as their name, image, voice, or mannerisms can be considered  a valid subject matter for trademark protection. Traditionally, trademarks are marks, logos, or  symbols used to identify a brand or commercial activity, but the concept has expanded to  include personal identities that have acquired distinctiveness and goodwill. A personality,  particularly one with significant public recognition, can function as a trademark if it serves to  identify the source of goods or services and is used in commerce.[12] 

INDIRECT PROTECTION OF PERSONALITY UNDER TRADEMARK LAW 

Since statutory trademark law in India and many other common law jurisdictions does  expressly recognise “personality” as a registrable subject matter, the legal system has  developed indirect mechanisms of protection. The most robust of these is the common law  remedy of “passing off.” 

The Role of Passing Off – 

In India, courts have relied extensively on passing off to protect personality-linked commercial  interest. The doctrine seeks to prevent misrepresentation that leads consumers to believe that  goods or services are endorsed by or associated with a particular individual. This protection is  rooted in the trademark principle that no one has the right to represent their goods as the goods  of another.[13] 

The Tort of Dilution – 

When a famous personality is associated with inferior goods, it dilutes their brand equity. In  Titan Industries v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, the court protected the personality rights of  Amitabh Bachchan and Jaya Bachchan, restraining the defendants from using their images to  sell jewellery. The court reasoned that the celebrity’s identity had an associative value that  belonged exclusively to them.[14] 

Trademark Laws indirectly protects people’s personality by registration of elements associated  with one’s personality like names, signatures, nicknames, catch phrases and slogans. Donald Trump, the president of United States made “Make America Great Again” the center-piece of  his political campaigns and rallies which, over time, became his political brand rather than a  mere slogan. In August 2016, he secured its commercial rights by registering it as a trademark. In 2014, hotel heiress Paris Hilton trademarked her signature phrase “That’s Hot” which gained  widespread popularity through her reality television show- The Simple Life.[15] 

COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS  

The world has become conscious of the personality rights of a celebrity and countries such as  the US, France, Germany, Canada, and Denmark have laws under which these rights can be  protected. In India, there is no express legislation that recognises and protects a celebrity’s  personality rights. However, these rights can be claimed under Article 19 and Article 21 of the  Constitution of India, which provide for the right to freedom of expression and speech, and  protection of life and personal liberty respectively. Both these fundamental rights preserve the  personal integrity of an individual. Furthermore, personality rights can also be protected under  Section 38 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which grants a performer two types of rights: the  exclusive right of performers, in Section 38A, and the moral rights of a performer, in Section  38B. Nonetheless, it is important to mention there are a lot of caveats to such a protection and  the courts may not necessarily be willing to indulge in same until a very strong case is made  out.[16] The cultural differences are significant in prioritising privacy, commerce, and freedom  of speech.  

The United States – 

United States offers the most expansive protection of Intellectual Property Rights by operating  on a dual system – Federal Trademark Laws (The Lanham Act) and at the state-level through  Right of Publicity. The Right of Publicity grants individuals a control over the commercial use  of their identity. The U.S. Courts have expanded this right to include not just names and  likenesses, but anything that evokes the celebrity’s persona.  

The United Kingdom – 

In contrast to the US, UK adopts a more restrictive approach. There is no standalone legal  doctrine of “personality rights” in the United Kingdom. In the case of Robyn Rihanna Fenty v.  Arcadia Group Brands (Topshop), Rihanna succeeded in a passing off claim against Topshop  for selling t-shirts with her face on them, but only because the specific circumstances suggested  she had endorsed the product. The court emphasized that there is no general right to control the  use of one’s image in the UK.[17] 

CONCLUSION  

Personality Trademarks occupy a complex and somewhat precarious position within the  landscape of intellectual property law. The evolving commercialisation of human identity has  pushed trademark law to its conceptual limits, compelling courts and scholars to re-examine  whether traditional principles are sufficient to protect modern forms of economic value. While  certain elements of personality may qualify for trademark protection upon acquiring  distinctiveness, the personality as a whole remains too fluid and subjective. Indian  Jurisprudence has therefore adopted a cautious sand indirect approach towards publicity rights to bridge existing statutory gap. The High Court in Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie  Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors. established the celebrity status of the Plaintiff and held the 

unauthorised commercial use of personality attributes to be infringing. The orders aimed to  prevent irreparable harm to the Plaintiff’s reputation and economic interest while recognising  the need to protect freedom of expression and artistic creativity. Therefore, while trademark  law serves as a valuable tool for safeguarding certain commercially exploitable aspects of  personality, it is neither designed nor equipped to offer comprehensive protection to human  identity in its entirety. 

REFERENCES

[1] Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf Alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors. CS(COMM)-389/2024.

[2] Pawan Kumar and Simar, “The Need to Regulate Personality Trademarks in India” (Bar And Bench – Indian  Legal News, January 24, 2025) https://www.barandbench.com/columns/personality-trademark-in-india-the-new unchained-wolf-and-need-to-regulate accessed on 15th December 2025.  

[3] Ibid.

[4] “CS(COMM)-389/2024” (https://www.casemine.com) [May 15, 2024] https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/664a1c01b39633034c06808a

[5] “Brand Personality | Research Starters | EBSCO Research” (EBSCO) https://www.ebsco.com/research starters/marketing/brand-personality accessed on 15th December 2025. 

[6] “The Need to Regulate Personality Trademarks in India” (Bar And Bench – Indian Legal News, January 24, 2025)  https://www.barandbench.com/columns/personality-trademark-in-india-the-new-unchained-wolf-and-need-to regulate accessed on 15th December 2025. 

[7] “Taylor Swift Trademark Strategy: A Model for Artist IP Protection” https://www.wipo.int/en/web/wipo magazine/articles/taylor-swift-trademark-strategy-a-model-for-artist-ip-protection-78728 accessed on 16th  December 2025. 

[8] “Trademarks” (Trademarks) https://www.wipo.int/en/web/trademarks accessed on 15th December 2025. 

[9] “TRADE MARKS ACT, 1999” Section 2(1)(m)- “mark” https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/ev/TM ACT-1999.html#s1 accessed on 15th December 2025.  

[10] Trade Marks Act, 1999 [Act No. 47 of Year 1999 dated 30th. December, 1999]- “Trade mark” Section 2(1)(zb). 

[11] Anand & Anand, “Balancing Individual Liberties and Commercial Exploitation: Indian Personality Rights  Jurisprudence” (Anand & Anand, September 24, 2024) https://www.anandandanand.com/news 

insights/balancing-individual-liberties-and-commercial-exploitation-indian-personality-rights-jurisprudence/ accessed on 16th December 2025. 

[12] Chatterjee A, “Is Personality a Subject Matter of Intellectual Property as a Trademark? A Legal Discourse”  (2024) https://lawjournals.celnet.in/index.php/jiprl/article/view/1460 accessed on 16th December 2025. 

[13] ICC Development (International) Ltd. v. Arvee Enterprises, IA No. 9854/2002 in Suit No. 1710/2002.

[14] Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, CS (OS) No. 2662/2011. 

[15] Admin, “10 Most Weird & Unique Trademarks You Won’t Believe Exist” (TMReady (Formerly the  Trademark Search Company), October 30, 2025) https://thetrademarksearchcompany.com/10-most-weird unique-trademarks-you-wont-believe-exist/ accessed on 21st December 2025.

[16] Anand & Anand, “Balancing Individual Liberties and Commercial Exploitation: Indian Personality Rights  Jurisprudence” (Anand & Anand, September 24, 2024) https://www.anandandanand.com/news insights/balancing-individual-liberties-and-commercial-exploitation-indian-personality-rights-jurisprudence/ accessed on 16th December 2025.  

[17] Fenty & Ors. V. Arcadia Group Brands Ltd (T/A Topshop) [2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch).