Skip to content
All articles

Peri News / India

India: poster reseller challenges injunction in Vivek Oberoi case

The dealer asks the Delhi High Court to lift restrictions affecting five listings, distinguishing personality rights from copyright in the posters.

Five overlapping posters with muted blue and graphite geometric shapes beside five dark cards on a white background, with soft light and subtle shadows.
AI-generated illustration

A film-poster reseller is asking the Delhi High Court to lift an interim injunction obtained by actor Vivek Anand Oberoi insofar as it applies to the business. The Internet Freedom Foundation (IFF), which is involved in defending Indian Hippy / Bollywood Movie Posters, a defendant in Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors., reports the challenge. Written submissions filed on 13 October 2026 contest restrictions affecting five sales listings. This account relies on the organisation’s report; the order and written submissions have not been examined directly.

According to IFF, Oberoi alleges that the dealer created customised posters using his image without authorisation. The defendant says it resells original physical publicity material for Company, Omkara and Shootout at Lokhandwala, without manufacturing or altering the items or presenting them as endorsed by the actor. The order of 5 February 2026, issued without first hearing the opposing party, covered the disputed material. The dealer reportedly removed all five listings on 12 April and subsequently challenged the restriction.

In IFF’s analysis, the defence distinguishes copyright in the graphic work from the depicted actor’s personality rights. It argues that appearing in a poster does not confer copyright ownership and invokes section 14(c)(iii) of India’s Copyright Act: exhaustion would ordinarily permit resale of a copy already in circulation, without authorising further reproduction. It also asks that each restriction identify a specific legal wrong, such as copyright infringement, misleading commercial endorsement, invasion of privacy or defamation. The defendant seeks to have the order lifted as it applies to the business and the corresponding injunction application dismissed with costs. The article reports no decision on that request.

Sources

Privacy and cookie notice ·