The plaintiff, Vivek Anand Oberoi, a well-known Indian film actor and entrepreneur, instituted a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court alleging large-scale misappropriation and unauthorized exploitation of his personality and publicity rights. He asserted that over a career spanning more than two decades, he had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation as an actor, businessman, and philanthropist, and that his name, image, voice, likeness, signature, and other identifiable attributes were exclusively associated with him in the minds of the public.<\/p>\n
He alleged that the defendants had been using his name and images on physical merchandise such as posters and postcards, which were sold through digital platforms including websites, e-commerce portals, and social media. The plaintiff further alleged that several defendants were using artificial intelligence tools, including deepfakes and face-morphing technologies, to create misleading images and videos falsely suggesting his endorsement or association.<\/p>\n
The plaintiff argued that his personality rights were legally protected and that any unauthorized commercial or non-consensual exploitation of his persona violated his rights under common law, statutory copyright principles, and the right to privacy under Article 21 of the Constitution. He emphasized the scale of infringement, the use of advanced AI technologies to mislead the public, and the difficulty in identifying all infringers individually. Various online intermediaries and government departments were arrayed as parties, along with unidentified \u201cJohn Doe\u201d defendants, to facilitate effective enforcement of reliefs sought.<\/p>\n
On this basis, he sought a dynamic injunction, takedown of infringing content, and disclosure of identifying details from intermediaries.<\/p>\n
No arguments were advanced on behalf of the defendants at this stage, as the matter was considered ex parte at the ad-interim stage and the defendants had not yet entered appearance.<\/p>\n
The Court assessed prima facie, the plaintiff\u2019s stature, reputation, and public recognition, noting his long and successful career in cinema, business ventures, and philanthropic activities. It held that attributes such as the plaintiff\u2019s name, image, likeness, and voice were distinctively associated with him and capable of protection as facets of personality rights. The Court recognized that unauthorized use of such attributes through modern technologies such as artificial intelligence and deepfakes, posed a serious threat to individual dignity, reputation, and economic interests.<\/p>\n
Applying the settled principles governing interim injunctions, the Court found that the plaintiff had demonstrated a strong prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in his favour, and that denial of immediate relief would result in irreparable harm not compensable in monetary terms. The Court also accepted the necessity of granting relief against unidentified infringers to prevent ongoing and future violations.<\/p>\n
The Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from using, exploiting, or misappropriating the plaintiff\u2019s name, image, voice, likeness, or any other identifiable aspect of his persona in any manner, including through artificial intelligence, deepfakes, or similar technologies. It further restrained the creation and dissemination of infringing products and digital content that diluted or tarnished the plaintiff\u2019s public persona.<\/p>\n
Certain defendants and intermediaries were directed to take down the infringing links listed in Annexure-A within a stipulated time and to disclose relevant identifying and technical details to the plaintiff. Procedural directions were issued for service of summons, filing of pleadings, and compliance with procedural requirements, and the suit was directed to proceed in accordance with law.<\/p>\n