The Delhi High Court has decreed Bollywood actor Amitabh Bachchan's personality rights suit against multiple defendants, restraining them from unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice, likeness and other aspects of his persona.

Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav passed the order on November 05 while dealing with Bachchan's suit alleging misappropriation of his publicity rights, passing off and seeking damages.

The Court passed the decree against four defendants who entered into a settlement with Bachchan and four others who failed to appear before it.

The decree also operates against unidentified persons (John Does).

The suit was filed against several individuals and entities allegedly using Bachchan's persona for commercial gain, including a mobile application titled "Amitabh Bachchan Video Call", a purported Kaun Banega Crorepati lottery circulated through WhatsApp messages, a general knowledge quiz book bearing his photograph, and T-shirts and posters carrying his images.

The actor had also impleaded domain name registrants of websites bearing his name.

The Court noted that defendants 1, 3, 5 and 8 had settled the dispute with Bachchan and acknowledged his publicity rights and right to privacy.

As part of the settlement, the defendants undertook not to use Bachchan's name, image, voice, likeness or any other aspect of his persona without his express permission.

The Court observed that the settlement was lawful, voluntary and capable of being incorporated into a decree under Order XXIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

"The settlement has been agreed upon without fear or coercion, and the parties appear to have entered into it on their own volition," the Court said.

The Court also decreed the suit against defendants 2, 4, 6 and 9 under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, after noting that they had failed to appear or file written statements despite service of summons.

Justice Kaurav observed that the provision could not be invoked mechanically. However, the Court found that no disputed question of fact required a trial in the present case.

It further held that the unauthorised use of Bachchan's name and photographs for commercial gain, without his consent, falsely suggested his endorsement.

The Court also extended the decree to unidentified infringers, observing that the plaint disclosed a continuing pattern of anonymous misuse of Bachchan's persona through websites, applications, posters and messaging platforms.

It granted liberty to Bachchan to institute fresh proceedings in the event of a fresh cause of action.