Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Del) 880

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J.

Aman Gupta – Plaintiff
Versus
John Doe/Ashok Kumar And Ors. – Defendants
CS(COMM) 462 of 2026
Decided On : 07-05-2026

Advocates Appeared :
For the Plaintiff : Ms. Diya Kapur, Senior Advocate with Mr. Nakul Gandhi, Mr. Mujeeb, Mr. Siddhi Sahoo, Mr. Gurdeep Singh, Mr. Raghav Kumar and Mr. Naibedya Amrit Dash, Advocates.
For the Respondents : Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Sana Banyal and Mr. Debditya Saha, Advocates, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Mr. Shruttima Ehersa and Mr. Ankit Tripathi, Advocates, Mr. Satya Ranjan Swain, CGSC with Mr. Naveen, GP and Mr. Kautilya Birat, Advocate, Mr. Devvrat Joshi, Mr. Pushpit Ghosh and Mr. Angad Makkar, Advocates.

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Diya Kapur, Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb, Siddhi Sahoo, Gurdeep Singh, Raghav Kumar, Naibedya Amrit Dash
For the Respondents: Varun Pathak, Sana Banyal, Debditya Saha, Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersa, Ankit Tripathi, Satya Ranjan Swain, Naveen, Kautilya Birat, Devvrat Joshi, Pushpit Ghosh, Angad Makkar

An individual holding significant public reputation and registered trademarks is entitled to interim injunctive relief to protect their personality rights, likeness, and intellectual property from unauthorized commercial exploitation and digital impersonation, including AI-based deepfakes, which pose a risk of reputational harm and unjust enrichment.

Headnote:The petitioner filed a commercial suit seeking an ad-interim injunction to protect his personality and publicity rights, alleging unauthorized use of his name, likeness, and catchphrases by various defendants. The petitioner serves as a well-known public figure and entrepreneur. The court observed that the petitioner has established a prima facie case regarding the infringement of his registered trademarks and personality rights, noting that the unauthorized use for financial gain and creation of deepfake content constitutes a violation of these rights and necessitates protection under the law. The main issues addressed were whether the petitioner is entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect his personality and trademark rights, and whether such rights extend to preventing the unauthorized creation of deepfake content and misleading online associations. The court reasoned that given the clear evidence of misappropriation of recognizable attributes, including voice, image, and slogans, for commercial exploitation, immediate intervention is required to prevent irreparable harm and unjust enrichment.

Result: The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from using the petitioner's identity and directing the removal of the infringing online content.

JUDGMENT :

I.A. 12191/2026 (Additional Documents)

1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPC’) as applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as ‘CC Act’) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 12764/2026 (Additional Documents)
4. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(5) of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

5. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 12188/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
7. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.

8. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi: (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.

9. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 12189/2026 (Seeking permission to file lengthy list of dates and synopsis)
10. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking permission to file lengthy list of dates and synopsis.

11. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, the lengthy list of dates and synopsis be taken on record.

12. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 12190/2026 (Seeking Additional time to file Court fees)
13. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from payment of Court Fees at the time of the filing of the suit.

14. Considering the submissions made in the present application, an extension of four weeks is granted to affix the requisite court fees.

15. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 12187/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)
16. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

17. Plaintiff claims to be a well-known Indian entrepreneur, Chartered Accountant, Investor, Public Speaker and a Panel Investor (commonly known as “Shark”) on the television program “Shark Tank India”. He claims to be a judge investor on the aforesaid show for the last five years continuously. Plaintiff also is a co-founder of boAt Lifestyle operating under Imagine Marketing Indian Pvt. Ltd. Plaintiff states to have been appointed as a Director and the Chief Marketing Officer of the said company in the year 2016 and continued in the same position till September, 2025. Plaintiff continues to be associated with the said company in the capacity of a Director. Presently, Plaintiff claims to be the founder and chief executive officer of OFF/BEAT which was launched on 03.03.2026.

18. Plaintiff claims to be the registered proprietor or trademarks “Hum Bhi Bana Lenge” bearing trade mark no.5764901 and “DOWN, BUT NOT OUT!” bearing trade mark no.5764905 duly registered under Class 25 and 41 respectively. The boAt is claimed to be India’s no.1 audio wearable brand as per the International Data Corporation. Plaintiff claims that through his entrepreneurial ventures, public appearances, business engagements and media presence, he has established himself as a leading business personality and a youth icon. Plaintiff claims wide recognition as a public personality by virtue of his role as an investor on the television program SHARK TANK INDIA aired on SONY LIV

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Del) 880

Cases Referred (1)