Back
2025 Supreme(Del) 268
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MINI PUSHKARNA, J.
Global Health Limited And Anr - Plaintiffs
Versus
John Doe And Ors - Defendants
CS(COMM) 6 of 2025 & I.A. Nos. 211 of 2025, 212 of 2025, 213 of 2025, 214 of 2025 & 215 of 2025
Decided on : 08-01-2025
For the Plaintiffs :Ms. Shyel Trehan, Senior Advocate with Ms. Manjira Dasgupta, Mr. Bhargav R. Thali and Mr. Vignesh Raj, Advocates
The unauthorized use of a personality's image and likeness for commercial purposes constitutes infringement and passing off, warranting an injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Commercial Courts Act, 2015 - Section 12A - Exemption from filing clear copies of documents and from undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation granted - Plaintiffs seek injunction against the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and personality rights due to deep fake videos - Plaintiffs demonstrate a prima facie case for injunction, with potential irreparable loss if not granted. (Paras 1-44)
(B) Intellectual Property Rights - Personality Rights - The unauthorized use of a well-known personality's image and likeness for commercial gain constitutes infringement and passing off under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. (Paras 20-42)
(C) Injunction - The court emphasizes the need to protect public health and the plaintiffs' goodwill from misleading advertisements and unauthorized content. (Paras 38-44)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiffs, a healthcare institution and its chairman, seek relief against the circulation of deep fake videos misrepresenting their services and expertise, which could mislead the public and harm their reputation.
Findings of Court:
The court grants exemptions from certain procedural requirements and issues directions for the removal of infringing content, emphasizing the urgency of the matter.
Issues: The main issues include the validity of the plaintiffs' claims regarding personality rights and the necessity of an injunction to prevent further harm.
Ratio Decidendi: The court finds that the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for an injunction based on the unauthorized use of their intellectual property and personality rights, which could lead to irreparable harm.
Result: Ex parte ad interim injunction granted.
ORDER :
I.A. 214/2025 (Exemption from filing clear copies of documents)
1. The present is an application under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking exemption from filing clear copies of the documents/proper margin/underline/single line spacing of the annexures filed with inadequate margins or without official translations of documents and for filing lengthy synopsis and list of dates.
2. Exemption is granted, subject to all just exceptions.
3. Plaintiffs shall file legible, clear, and translated copies of the documents, on which the plaintiffs may seek to place reliance, before the next date of hearing.
4. Accordingly, the present application is disposed of.
I.A. 212/2025 (Exemption from instituting Pre-Institution Mediation)
5. The present is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from undergoing Pre-Institution Mediation.
6. Having regard to the facts of the present case and in the light of the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Yamini Manohar Versus T.K.D. Keerthi, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1382, and Division Bench of this Court in Chandra Kishore Chaurasia Versus RA Perfumery Works Private Ltd., 2022 SCC OnLine Del 3529, exemption from attempting Pre-Institution Mediation, is granted.
7. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 215/2025 (Exemption from advance service to the defendant no. 1)
8. The present is an application under Section 151 CPC, seeking exemption from advance service to defendant no. 1.
9. The plaintiffs seek urgent interim relief. Therefore, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, exemption from effecting advance service upon the defendant no. 1, is granted.
10. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed and disposed of.
I.A. No. 213/2025 (Application seeking extension of time to file Court Fees)
11. The present application has been filed under Sections 148 and 149, read with Section 151 CPC, seeking extension of time to file Court Fees.
12. Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submit that Court Fees shall be filed within a period of two weeks.
13. Liberty is so granted.
14. Noting the aforesaid, the present application is disposed of.
CS(COMM) 6/2025
15. Let the plaint be registered as suit.
16. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons to the defendants by all permissible modes. Summons shall state that the written statement be filed by the defendants within thirty days from the date of receipt of summons. Along with the written statement, the defendants shall also file affidavit of admission/denial of the plaintiffs’ documents, without which, the written statement shall not be taken on record.
17. Liberty is given to the plaintiffs to file replication within thirty days from the date of receipt of the written statement. Further, along with the replication, if any, filed by the plaintiffs, an affidavit of admission/denial of documents of the defendants, be filed by the plaintiffs, without which, the replication shall not be taken on record. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of the documents, the same shall be sought and given within the timelines.
18. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) for marking of exhibits, on 12th March, 2025.
19. List before the Court on 26th May, 2025.
I.A. 211/2025 (Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC)
20. The present suit has been filed for injunction seeking to take down fabricated/deep fake video restraining infringement of personality and publicity rights, damages for loss of reputation and infringement of trademarks and/or passing off.
21. Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs submits that the present suit has been preferred by the plaintiffs against the defendants, owing to the continued publication and circulation of a series of fabricated/deep fake videos, the most recent being published on 16th December, 2024 (and which came to the knowledge of the plaintif
