Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction to Podcaster Raj Shamani, Protecting Personality Rights Against AI Deepfakes and Unauthorized Commercial Use

New Delhi: In a significant order reinforcing the protection of celebrity and personality rights in the digital age, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of renowned content creator and podcaster Raj Shamani. The court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora , restrained a host of entities from misusing Shamani's name, voice, image, and likeness for commercial gain without authorization, including through the use of AI and deepfake technology.

The court prima facie held that a public figure's personality traits are protectable elements and that they are entitled to seek an injunction against the unauthorized use of these rights by third parties for commercial gain.

---

Background of the Case

The lawsuit was filed by Raj Shamani (Plaintiff No. 1) and the corporate entity that produces his popular podcast, "Figuring Out" (Plaintiff No. 2). They sought a permanent injunction against numerous defendants, including unknown "John Doe" entities, for a wide range of infringements.

The plaintiffs alleged that various online platforms and individuals were engaged in: - Trademark and Copyright Infringement: Unauthorized use of the registered trademarks ‘FIGURING OUT’ and reproduction of copyrighted podcast clips. - Violation of Personality and Publicity Rights: Using Shamani’s name, image, and voice for fake endorsements, creating misleading affiliations with products and services, and running unauthorized booking portals. - Misuse of Technology: Creating AI-generated deepfakes, morphed videos, and unauthorized chatbots that impersonated Shamani. - Reputational Harm: Publishing obscene and derogatory content that falsely associated Shamani with vulgar material.

The defendants ranged from online booking portals and service platforms to YouTube channels and unknown individuals operating on platforms like Telegram, Meta, and Google.

Court's Prima Facie Findings

After reviewing the evidence, Justice Arora's bench established a strong prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs. The court acknowledged Raj Shamani's status as a well-known personality with significant goodwill and reputation, built over a successful career.

> "This Court is of the prima facie view that the Plaintiff is a known face in India, especially in the field of content creation who has gained goodwill and reputation over a course of a successful career... it prima facie appears to this Court that Plaintiff No. 1 enjoys publicity rights with respect to its personality which is a valuable right for the Plaintiff."

The judgment underscored that an individual's persona is a valuable asset that cannot be commercially exploited without consent.

> "Therefore, prima facie, the Plaintiff No. 1’s personality traits and/or parts thereof, including the Plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice, image are protectable elements of the Plaintiff’s personality rights. The Plaintiff No. 1 is entitled to seek injunction against the use of his personality rights by third parties for their commercial gains without his authorisation."

The court also affirmed the plaintiffs' rights over their registered trademarks and the copyright vested in the "Figuring Out" podcast series.

Distinction for Parody and Satire

Notably, the court addressed the issue of content that could be classified as parody, satire, or criticism. Justice Arora observed that combining the cause of action against clear infringers with those who might claim parody as a defence would "embarrass the trial," as the legal arguments would be materially different.

Consequently, the court deferred issuing summons to defendants allegedly involved in creating parody videos, asking the plaintiffs to consider filing a separate lawsuit against them. This distinction highlights the court's nuanced approach to balancing intellectual property and personality rights with the freedom of speech and expression, which protects satire and critique.

Directions Issued by the Court

The High Court issued a comprehensive set of interim directions, including:

1. Blanket Restraint: An injunction restraining the infringing defendants from misusing Shamani's persona (name, image, voice, etc.) for any commercial or personal gain, through any technology, including AI and deepfakes.
2. Takedown Orders: Directing social media platforms like Telegram, Meta (Defendant No. 7), and Google (Defendant No. 11) to block or take down the specific infringing URLs and content identified by the plaintiffs.
   
   
3. Disclosure of Information: Ordering the platforms to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) of the unknown "John Doe" defendants who uploaded the infringing content.
   
   
4. Future Infringements: Granting liberty to the plaintiffs to approach the social media platforms directly to take down any identical or "mirror" content that surfaces in the future.

The proforma defendants (social media intermediaries) were directed to comply with the takedown orders within 72 hours. The matter is scheduled to be heard next before the Joint Registrar on December 24, 2025, and before the Court on April 24, 2026.