ISSUE 1st

Your Lordships, personality rights are recognised as a form of commercial intellectual

Under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution, Ms. Miyaki had the freedom to carry on any
occupation or business — this includes the right to monetise her persona. Additionally,
Article 300A secures her right to property, which extends to intangible assets such as
personality and publicity rights.

Coming to statutory provisions:

 Section 14 of the Copyright Act grants exclusive rights over original creative content
including performance and sound.
 Sections 18 and 19 of the Copyright Act permit assignment of such rights, provided
the agreement is in writing and clearly states duration and scope — which, in our
case, was a 10-year exclusive license.
 Section 10 of the Indian Contract Act ensures that an agreement made with free
consent, lawful object and consideration is a valid contract.

In our case, Ms. Miyaki clearly exercised that control by granting us written, exclusive
permission. Therefore, we submit that the contract is constitutionally sound, legally valid, and
survives her death as per Section 37 of the Contract Act.

 Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that Ms. Miyaki’s will, executed in 2018, validly
transferred her personality rights to her daughter under Indiana succession laws. If
such rights can be transferred through testamentary disposition, it further affirms that
she had the legal capacity to transfer those same rights through a licensing agreement
in 2022 to Divergent Media Ltd. Thus, her contractual grant stands on equally valid
legal footing.
 In Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions (Madras High Court, 2015), the Court
granted a permanent injunction restraining the unauthorized use of the actor
Rajinikanth's name, image, and persona in the film titled Main Hoon Rajinikanth. The
Court affirmed that personality rights—such as name, likeness, voice, and distinctive
style—are protectable under Indian law, even in the absence of statutory provisions. It
held that such rights can only be used with the individual's consent and emphasized
that unauthorized use, even without confusion or commercial motive, amounts to
infringement. This case firmly supports the proposition that personality rights are
exclusive to the individual and are transferable by express authorization or license.

ISSUE 2nd

The question here is whether Ms. Katie Suzanna, as the legal heir, can override or interfere
with the valid and existing 10-year licensing agreement signed by the late Ms. Miyaki
Suzanna.
Your Lordships, while it is true that personality rights may be inherited, the law makes it
abundantly clear that such inheritance is subject to existing legal obligations. In this case,
those obligations are set out in a detailed written agreement signed in 2022.

According to Section 211 of the Indian Succession Act, a legal heir or representative inherits
not just the rights but also the liabilities of the deceased. Section 306 confirms that
contractual rights and duties survive death, and Section 307 restricts the legal representative
from disposing of any rights in a way that breaches a contract made by the deceased.

Similarly, Section 37 of the Indian Contract Act binds the legal representative to perform the
promises made by the deceased, unless the contract itself states otherwise—which it does not
in our case.

Finally, Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act protect the sanctity of written
contracts. A will or oral statement cannot override the terms of a valid agreement.

So, while Katie may have inherited Miyaki’s remaining rights, she inherited them subject to
our exclusive license, and cannot use or authorise use of Miyaki’s voice or likeness until the
agreement expires.

Therefore, we submit that her actions are not only premature but are also a clear breach of a
binding and enforceable contract.

3rd ISSUE

We respectfully submit that Divergent Media is entitled to an ad-interim injunction to

An injunction is granted when three elements are satisfied:

1. A prima facie case,

Your Lordships, all three are present here:

 Prima facie case: We hold an exclusive 10-year license over Miyaki’s personality
rights. Katie’s use of her AI likeness and voice infringes that agreement.
 Irreparable harm: The album’s release would damage our ongoing digital projects—
such as MiyakiVerse—causing reputational and commercial harm that money cannot
repair.
 Balance of convenience: Divergent Media has made significant investments and
sublicensed Miyaki's persona globally. Maintaining the status quo protects the parties
until final adjudication.

Permitting a legal heir to override a valid contract would create a harmful precedent in
India’s IP and media landscape. permitting a legal heir to disregard such contracts would
destabilise India’s creative economy. Courts are now recognising personality rights in
emerging technologies. In Shivaji Rao Gaikwad v. Varsha Productions, the Madras High
Court restrained similar unauthorised use of persona in film. the Bombay High Court’s ruling
in Arijit Singh v. Codible Ventures (2024) is highly relevant. The Court granted an ex-parte
injunction against the unauthorized AI use of Arijit Singh’s voice and persona, recognizing it
as a clear violation of personality rights causing irreparable harm.
In the same way, the Respondent’s album uses a hyper-realistic AI recreation of Ms. Miyaki
Suzanna, directly infringing our exclusive license. We respectfully urge this Hon’ble Court to
adopt a similar approach and grant immediate interim relief.

We therefore respectfully pray that an ad-interim injunction be granted, restraining the

Additionally, under Article 14, all parties must be treated equally under the law. Allowing a
legal heir to override a valid IP contract would create dangerous precedent for media and
licensing law.

Prayer

In light of the submissions, Your Lordships, we respectfully pray that this Hon’ble Court:

1. Affirm the validity of the 2022 exclusive licensing agreement between Divergent
Media Ltd. and the late Ms. Miyaki Suzanna;
2. Declare that the Respondent is bound by the agreement and cannot exploit the
licensed personality rights during its term; and
3. Grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the release or promotion of the infringing
AI-generated album until final adjudication.

Your Lordships, any delay or denial of relief would result in irreparable harm to the
Petitioner’s commercial and intellectual property interests, and send a concerning
message that legally granted personality rights can be circumvented even in the age of
AI and digital replication.
We seek not just protection of our commercial stake, but also preservation of legal
certainty in India’s creative economy.
Much obliged, Your Lordships.