Expression or Exploitation: Parody, Satire, and the Law of Trademarks and Personality Rights

Humour is a powerful medium for social commentary, capable of addressing sensitive issues while making them more accessible and impactful. In the realm of intellectual property law, parody occupies a distinctive position as it brings creative expression into direct engagement with legal protection. Parodists and satirists frequently draw upon established trademarks and celebrity personas to craft commentary or critique, while brand owners and public figures seek to safeguard their proprietary interests and reputation. The central challenge in Indian jurisprudence is to reconcile the constitutional guarantee of free expression with the enforcement of trademark and personality rights.

The Parody Paradox: A Legal Tightrope

A trademark parody operates through a delicate balance. The effectiveness of parody rests on the deliberate invocation of a well-known brand element, such as a name, logo, or slogan, for the limited purpose of recalling the original in the minds of the audience, while simultaneously transforming that association through humor or satire. However, this reliance on familiarity creates immediate legal conflict. Trademark proprietors often allege that such use amounts to infringement, arguing that it either dilutes brand value or misleads consumers. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, does not explicitly recognize a statutory defense for parody. Given the absence of explicit statutory provisions, Indian courts have approached parody through the prism of Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution, which enshrines the right to freedom of speech and expression. In doing so, the judiciary has developed a jurisprudential framework that accords significance to the context and intent of the expression. The principal legal issue is whether the parody makes reference to the original mark in a manner sufficient for recognition, while at the same time distinguishing itself as independent commentary so as not to mislead consumers or dilute the proprietor’s rights.

Assessing Intent in Parody: Expression and Misappropriation

In disputes involving parody, intent often serves as the fulcrum of judicial reasoning. Courts have been more receptive where the use of a mark is directed towards satire, critique, or broader social commentary, recognising such expression as falling within the protective ambit of free speech. Conversely, where the parody is structured in a manner that is likely to deceive or cause confusion, take unfair advantage of the reputation associated with the mark or result in dilution of its distinctive character, the Courts have been reluctant to extend protection. Accordingly, intent assumes a determinative role in distinguishing expression that qualifies as legitimate commentary from use that constitutes infringement under trademark law. The landmark judgment in Tata Sons Limited v. Greenpeace International & Ors.^[1] serves as a preeminent example of protected expression. Greenpeace's use of the TATA logo in a parody video game was deemed to have a "due cause" to raise public awareness about an environmental issue. The Delhi High Court held that, in the absence of a commercial motive, the impugned use constituted a legitimate exercise of expression and did not amount to trademark infringement. This case established a clear precedent that non-commercial criticism enjoys robust constitutional protection. Conversely, the decision in Independent News Service Private Limited v. Ravindra Kumar Choudhary^[2] underscores the threshold at which parody transgresses into unlawful exploitation. The Delhi High Court granted an injunction against the Defendant, who had adopted the marks “Baap ki Adalat” and “Jhandiya TV” in purported parody of a well-known news programme. The Court held that the impugned marks were phonetically and visually deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks and that such adoption was intended to ride upon and unfairly appropriate the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation. The ruling illustrates that where the element of humor serves as a mere pretext for commercial advantage or where the use creates a likelihood of confusion among the public, the defence of parody cannot be sustained.

Personality Rights and the Celebrity Persona

The principles governing parody and exploitation equally extend to the domain of personality rights, an area witnessing increasing judicial scrutiny with the proliferation of digital and social media platforms. Personality rights safeguard a celebrity’s name, image, voice, and likeness against unauthorized commercial appropriation. In Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Ors.^[3],  the Delhi High Court granted injunctive relief restraining the unauthorized use of the actor’s persona in fraudulent activities and on merchandise. The Court held that the right of publicity, as an incident of personality rights, vests in the celebrity and includes the exclusive entitlement to control the commercial use of one’s identity. Similarly, in Jaikishan Kakubhai Shroff v. The Peppy Store and Ors.^[4], the court protected the actor's personality rights against entities using his likeness on merchandise. However, the Court declined to grant an injunction against a YouTuber who employed excerpts of the actor’s films for satirical and comedic content. This refusal was based on the recognition that parody and artistic commentary, when unaccompanied by commercial misappropriation, constitute protected expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. These rulings collectively demonstrate the judicial attempt to strike a balance between safeguarding proprietary rights in celebrity identity and preserving legitimate spheres of free speech and creative expression.

The Strategic Defense of Nominative Fair Use

In the absence of a specific statutory exception for parody under the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, Indian courts have increasingly relied on the doctrine of nominative fair use as a robust defense. This doctrine permits the limited use of a trademark when it is reasonably necessary to identify the trademark owner or its products, a principle frequently applied in news reporting, commentary, criticism, and comparative advertising. Parody finds its justification within this legal framework, provided that the use is strictly confined to identification and commentary, and does not serve as a source identifier for the parodist's own goods or services. The permissible use must be proportionate and devoid of any implication of sponsorship, endorsement, or affiliation by the trademark proprietor.  In the case of Royal Challengers Sports Private Limited v. Uber India Systems Private Limited^[5], the Court upheld the use of a cricket team's mark in a "playful banter" advertisement. The ruling underscored that no reasonable consumer would presume a commercial association between the two parties, thereby recognizing the use as humorous commentary rather than misappropriation. The Court affirmed the scope of nominative fair use as a legitimate shield for parody.

Conclusion

The treatment of parody and satire in Indian trademark and personality rights law is a testament to the judiciary's sophisticated approach. It ensures that humor can continue to serve as a meaningful vehicle for critique without undermining the integrity of commercial rights. The legal framework, though still evolving, is guided by clear principles: a parodist’s intent must be genuine, the work must not mislead consumers, and the use of the mark must be confined to what is necessary for commentary. By applying these standards with precision, Indian courts are fostering a legal environment that safeguards intellectual property while allowing creative expression and commercial interests to coexist productively.

Aaina Sethi 

Partner

aaina.sethi@iprattorneys.com

Divanshi Gupta

Senior Associate

divanshi.gupta@iprattorneys.com

References:

[1] CS (OS) 1407/2010

[2] CS(COMM) 498/2024

[3] CS(COMM) 819/2022

[4] CS(COMM) 389/2024

[5] CS(COMM) 345/2025