"Analyzing ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises: Case Overview and Outcome"

"Analyzing ICC Development v. Arvee Enterprises: Case Overview and Outcome"

INTRODUCTION 

Without a doubt, renowned people lead extremely different lives. Since their voice, signature, photos, or even likenesses are immediately recognizable, they thrive on retention value. Although this has some advantages, it also leaves them open to copying. The right to publicity is relevant in this situation. This privilege is acknowledged as a component of a well-known person's intellectual property rights. It essentially helps a personality defend their personality legally against being copied or used without permission. It refers to the ability to manage how one's name, image, or appearance is used and to forbid unauthorized third parties from doing so for profit. The legally mandated right to privacy is combined with the other two rights to form personality.

FACT 

The plaintiffs were in charge of planning the 2003 ICC World Cup competition that would take place in South Africa. The plaintiff designed a distinctive brand and character named "Dazzler" specifically for this use.

Additionally, the plaintiff had submitted trademark registration requests for "ICC Cricket World Cup South Africa 2003," as well as the Dazzler mascot and emblem.

The defendants then began a sales marketing plan in which they inserted images of fake tickets with fake gate numbers reading "Cricket World Cup 2003" and slogans like "Philips: Diwali Manao World Cup Jao." 

As a result, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit for an injunction to own and control all commercial rights, such as media, sponsorship, and other intellectual property rights connected to ICC tournaments, and said that ICC event has personality of their own 

ARGUMENTS

Plaintiff

Through their promotion, the defendants knowingly misrepresented their affiliation with the plaintiffs during the world cup. They did this in an effort to profit commercially unfairly from such affiliation. The plaintiffs' personality rights were violated in this way.

The defendants' activities must be interpreted as mala fide and dishonest with the goal to bring shame to the World Cup and its sponsors because they were operating in the same industry as the plaintiffs.

The ticket terms specifically forbid the defendants from distributing tickets without the plaintiff's permission. They may have engaged in ambush marketing with their conduct.

The defendants denied the world cup sponsors the exclusivity of the rights that had been given to them

Defendant

The defendants claimed that the term "World Cup" was only used in a generic sense, which is demonstrated by the fact that neither the plaintiffs' conspicuous emblem nor the full phrase "ICC Cricket World Cup South Africa 2003" were used in conjunction with the term.

Only the possibility of receiving a ticket or trip package from a travel agency to attend a World Cup event is suggested by the slogan in the advertising. A reasonable person would not be led to believe by their advertisement that they are the event's sponsors in any way.

The defendants had no desire to become associated, connected, or affiliated with the plaintiff.

The term "World Cup" is a generalization that has been applied to a number of different international sporting competitions. Contrary to the word "Olympic" and its logo, which are protected by the Emblems and Names (Prevention of Improper Use) Act of 1950, it is not also covered by any international convention or state law.

Regarding the ticket conditions, the defendants asserted that they made their reservations through the plaintiff's sole authorized agency and that they were not informed of any such terms at the time they made their booking.

The defendants denied the world cup sponsors the exclusivity of the rights that had been given to them.

Analysis of the case

Concept analysis

Concept of celebrity and personality rights

A celebrity's persona has financial worth, and the personality right recognizes this and safeguards the celebrity's exclusive interest in the success of their public image. Although this privilege is not statutorily protected in India, courts have recognized it and established a framework for handling grievances. Celebrities are typically granted personality rights. The word "celebrity" comes from the Latin "celebritatem," which refers to the quality of fame. In essence, personality right encompasses within its scope physical characteristics of the celebrity, such as the face, particular haircuts, etc. Additionally, it contains a celebrity's signature, pictures, shaky video footage, and even their name and voice.

It's possible to classify celebrity-specific actions as personality traits, such as Rajnikanth flipping off his spectacles. In a nutshell, it refers to all of a person's qualities and features that are essential or incidental to his or her status as a celebrity.

Therefore, whether or not a person has attracted the public's attention is the primary criterion for the extension of personality or celebrity rights. To be eligible for personality rights, a person must first attain a particular amount of notoriety and public recognition. This suggests that athletes too have access to personality rights.

In the arena of sports 

Organizations across Europe have reaped enormous profits by using player personality and image rights. Welsh player Gareth Bale was acquired by Real Madrid in September 2013 for a then-record-breaking £85.3 million ($105.3 million). Bale gave Real Madrid 50% of his image rights in exchange, and by leveraging those rights to sell products and make other commercial endorsements, the club was eventually able to recoup its significant investment. Players like David Beckham incorporate firms for their name and image, which helps with tax planning, and this further influences player salaries. Players like Sachin Tendulkar have gone above and above to preserve their reputation by trademarking their names or domain names for their websites

The manager of England's Manchester United, Jose Mourinho, must be well-known to a die-hard football fan. An argument over Jose Mourinho's hiring between Manchester United and Chelsea is a recent example of a personality rights conflict. Chelsea, who owned several EU trademarks for his name, signature, and other products as well as his image rights, requested that United stop using his personality rights. When United finally gave in and paid Chelsea an undisclosed sum (reported to be over a million pounds) for the acquisition of Mourinho's personality rights, the problem was finally resolved.

Concept of passing off 

In essence, passing off is when someone misrepresents a thing as belonging to another person in order to sell it. As a result, a business capitalizes on another's reputation. Perry v. Truefitt captures the fundamental idea that no one should sell a product under the guise that it belongs to another man.  Furthermore, the court found that passing off is a broad remedy maintainable for a variety of reasons other than those of registered rights in S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai. The petitioner must keep in mind that proving goodwill in a passing off lawsuit entails proving that the general public links the mark with the product.

In Micolube India Ltd. v. Maggon Auto Centre, the court ruled that the petitioner in a passing-off lawsuit must show that the consumer was duped into purchasing the contested product and that it is connected to the goods of the first user of the mark. Notably, a trademark can only be registered if it has developed a secondary meaning, or if it is distinctive in relation to the good being sold. It was decided in the case of Toyota Jidosha Kabushiki Kaisha v. M/S Prius Auto Industries Limited that establishing goodwill in the former user is necessary to establish passing-off.

So how does a passing off lawsuit result from the violation of personality rights? This is true because publicity rights violations frequently take the form of misrepresentation, which damages a person's goodwill and ultimately costs them money and their reputation.

Judgement analysis

The first decision in the Indian legal system to address the issue of publicity and personality rights was CC Development v. Arvee Enterprises. It's vital to consider the guidelines set forth in this ruling with regard to personality rights in light of how they relate to sports, as previously discussed. The complainant alleged that the defendants violated their personality or reputation rights by misrepresenting their connection to the World Cup. On this matter, the court was of a different opinion. They claimed that the rights to personality come from the right to privacy.

The court's ruling stated that "publicity rights have developed from the right to privacy and may only be in here in an individual or in any indication of an individual's identity, such as his name, personality attribute, signature, voice, etc.... Articles 19 and 21 of the Indian Constitution are violated by any attempt to transfer publicity rights from individuals to the event organizer. An individual owns the publicity right, and he is the only one with the right to profit from it. The case blurred the line between the right to privacy and publicity rights, which is counter to US practice.

The courts concluded that non-living things are not covered by the right of publicity. By involvement with an event, a person may obtain the Right of Publicity; however, neither the event in question nor the event's organizer are covered by this right.

Furthermore, in terms of passing off, the defendant just crafts a slogan utilizing the term "World Cup" without using any of the plaintiff's products or services. The court went so far as to clarify that the word "World Cup" was general and non-exclusive because it is the phrase used in the dictionary for an occasion or competition in which a number of nations take part. The main purpose of this is to let people know that by buying their items, they have a chance to win a World Cup ticket. No reasonable man was persuaded or given the false idea that the defendants were the event's sponsors. The plaintiffs suffer no financial or reputational loss as a result. The defendants cannot be held accountable for passing off since the requirements of unfair competition or unlawful appropriation are not met in this case, which violates the passing off's core concept.

Conclusion

Due to the fact that it was the first Indian case to establish personality rights, this historic decision was unique in its sort. Although it was a step in the right direction, it fell short. The need for the preservation of personality rights is becoming increasingly evident as aggressive and momentary marketing become more popular. The idea of sportspeople's having personality rights in India is still in its infancy. For instance, John Terry, a well-known football player and the captain of England's national team, was featured on cigarette packets thanks to permission from the Indian government. As a result of Sachin Tendulkar giving up his image rights for his autobiography, Playing It My Way, more and more athletes and celebrities are starting to do the same.new exposure is required, which will open up new business opportunities and result in a number of legal problems. A codified legislation would be more appropriate, in the author's opinion, given the growing complexity of this subject, even though protection is provided under Article 21 as a byproduct of the right to privacy.

**Author : Arrthi M B.sc.,LL.B ( Hons.,), a Student of School of Excellence in Law, Tamilnadu Dr.Ambedkar Law University, chennai