Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan – Appellant
Versus
The Artists Planet – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1269/2025

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Dhruv Anand, Abhishek Kale, Udita Patro, Nimrat Singh, Dhananjay Khanna, Unnati Gambani, Pranav Nair
For the Respondents: Manas Raghuvanshi, Vivek Ayyagari, Misthi Dubey, Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersha, Varun Pathak, Yash Karunakaran, Mritunjoy Roy, Nidhi Raman, Om Ram, Mayank Sansanwal

Personality rights represent a proprietary interest in one's name, likeness, and voice, protectable against unauthorized commercial exploitation and digital manipulation such as deepfakes, regardless of the technology used, subject to the exhaustion of statutory grievance mechanisms for intermediary take-downs.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Art. 19 and Art. 21 - Personality and Publicity rights - Trademark infringement - Copyright Act, 1957 - S.38, 38A and 38B - Moral rights - Commercial exploitation of celebrity status - Use of Generative AI/Deepfakes for non-consensual content - Prima facie finding that an acclaimed actor has proprietary rights over his name, image, likeness and voice - Unauthorized use by third parties for commercial gain or creation of obscene materials constitutes infringement - Courts possess authority to grant ex-parte ad-interim injunctions to prevent irreparable harm - Statutory grievance mechanisms under IT Intermediary Rules, 2021 are cost-effective and time-sensitive; parties are encouraged to avail these before seeking judicial intervention - Failure to utilize statutory mediation/grievance processes without justification could impact future injunction eligibility. (Paras 48-52, 56)

Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a prominent actor, sought an ad-interim injunction against various defendants, including AI platforms and social media intermediaries, alleging the unauthorized commercial use of his name, likeness, and personality. He specifically highlighted the creation of deepfake and AI-morphed content portraying him in disparaging or pornographic contexts, and the sale of unauthorized merchandise.

Findings of Court:
The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against infringing defendants, noting that the plaintiff’s reputation and brand identity are well-established. It directed the takedown of infringing URLs and blocking of domains, while emphasizing that social media intermediaries are required to act on grievances. The court clarified that future litigants should prioritize statutory grievance mechanisms before approaching the court for ex-parte relief.

Issues: Whether the unauthorized use of name, image, and AI-generated deepfake content constitutes an infringement of an individual's personality and publicity rights, and what the scope of intermediary liability is under current regulations.

Ratio Decidendi: An individual has proprietary rights over their personality attributes (name, voice, likeness). The use of these attributes via technologies like AI to exploit a celebrity’s image for commercial gain or to create humiliating/obscene content without consent is actionable, warranting injunctive relief to prevent irreparable injury.

Result: Application allowed with directions for takedown and regulatory compliance.

Table of Content
1. procedural compliance and exemptions in commercial suit filings. (Para 1 , 8)
2. exemption from pre-litigation mediation for urgent interim relief. (Para 9 , 11)
3. registration of suit and guidelines for service of summons. (Para 25 , 37)
4. injunction application and arguments regarding personality rights. (Para 38 , 39 , 45)
5. court’s assessment of personality rights and statutory grievance mechanisms. (Para 46 , 56)
6. directions issued for injunction and compliance mechanisms. (Para 57 , 66)

O R D E R

I.A. 29563/2025 (seeking exemption from issuing written notice)

1. This is an application seeking exemption from issuing notice to Defendant Nos. 15 and 16 under Section 80(2) r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [‘CPC’].

2. Issue notice.

3. Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC. accepts notice. She states that since Defendant Nos. 15 and 16 are proforma Defendants, she has no objection to the exemption being granted.

4. Keeping in view the fact that Defendant Nos. 15 and 16 are proforma Defendants, the exemption as sought is hereby granted.

5. The application stand disposed of.

I.A. 29562/2025 (seeking time for filing required certificate)

6. This is an application filed under Section 151 CPC seeking time for filing the required certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.

7. The Plaintiff is directed to file the required certificate within four (4) weeks, failing which the document shall not be read in evidence.

8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 29561/2025 (seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation)

9. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 151 CPC, filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation mediation.

10. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief and in light of the judgement of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi¹(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

11. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 29560/2025 (seeking extension of time for filing court fees)

12. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff states that the Court fees certificate has already been deposited and therefore, the relief sought in this application has become infructuous.

13. In view of the aforesaid, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 29559/2025 (seeking exemption from filing clearer copies)

14. Subject to the Plaintiff filing the clearer copies of dim documents sought to be relied upon within four (4) weeks from today, exemption is granted for the present. If the Plaintiff fails to file the documents, the dim documents shall not be read in evidence.

15. The application is disposed of.

I.A. 29558/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)

16. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015] read with Section 151 CPC, within thirty (30) days.

17. The Plaintiff, if they wish to file additional documents, will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 [‘DHC Rules’].

18. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

19. Accordingly, the application is disposed of.

I.A. 29557/2025 (seeking discovery, production and inspection)

20. This is an application filed under Order XI Rule 1, 3 and 5 of the CPC seeking production, discovery and inspection of the Defendants documents, details of which are given at paragraph 3 of the captioned application.

21. Issue notice to Defendant nos. 2, 6, 8, 9, 10 and 11.

22. Reply be filed within two (2) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within two (2) weeks thereafter.

23. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 26.12.2025.

24. List before Court on 30

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 10442

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHIManmeet Pritam Singh Arora, JAjay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan – AppellantVersusThe Artists Planet – RespondentCS(COMM) 1269/2025

Cases Referred (1)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J
Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan – Appellant
Versus
The Artists Planet – Respondent
CS(COMM) 1269/2025