The Madras High Court ruled that the actress failed to prove her photos were used after the endorsement deal expired. Her claim for damages and request to stop further use of images were both rejected.
Image Source: Instagram
What started as a dispute over soap ads turned into a legal battle stretching back years, and now the final verdict has shut the door on Tamannaah Bhatia for her ₹1 crore claim. The court wasn’t convinced by the evidence, and the actress walked away without the damages she demanded.
The case revolved around alleged misuse of her promotional images by Power Soaps Limited after their endorsement deal expired. Tamannaah argued that her photos kept appearing on soap packaging and promotions even after the contract ended.
Advertisement
But the judges saw things differently, and the ruling has now confirmed that the claim didn’t hold up.
Advertisement
The dispute goes all the way back to a 2008 endorsement agreement. Under the deal, Tamannaah allowed the company to use her images to promote its soap products for one year. The contract ended in October 2009. According to her, the trouble started after that.
View this post on Instagram
The actress claimed that her photos continued to appear on product wrappers, advertisements, and even online listings during 2010-2011. She argued this allegedly unauthorised use hurt her professional opportunities.
At the time, she was reportedly negotiating with competing brands, and she believed the continued presence of her face on those soap products affected those talks.
Because of this, she approached the court seeking ₹1 crore in damages. She also requested a permanent injunction to stop the company from using her images any further.
The case first went before a single judge of the Madras High Court, who examined the materials Tamannaah submitted. These included product wrappers, a purchase document, and internet listings.
However, the judge found these items unreliable. The ruling stated that they did not clearly establish a connection between the company and the alleged misuse of her photographs after the contract period.
Because of this, the single judge dismissed her suit, rejected the damages claim, and denied the request for an injunction. The court also imposed costs while dismissing the case. Tamannaah then filed an appeal, hoping for a different outcome.
But the Division Bench, comprising P Velmurugan and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi, upheld the earlier decision. The bench agreed that she failed to establish that her photographs were used beyond the contractual period.
Advertisement
