Personality Rights Protect Well-Known Individuals’ Name, Image, Voice And Likeness Against AI & Deepfake Misuse: Delhi High Court

The Court was hearing a commercial suit filed by Dr Shetty and Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights and the company’s registered trademarks against fabricated audio-visual content circulated on Facebook and YouTube.

A Single Bench of Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed: “On merits, the personality and publicity rights of a well-known individual, comprising his name, image, voice, likeness and other indicia of his persona, have consistently been recognised and protected by this Court, particularly against misuse through artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.”

Advocate Sidharth Chopra appeared for the plaintiffs. Advocate Varun Pathak appeared for Meta Platforms Inc., while Advocate Ekta Sharma appeared for Google LLC.

Background

Dr Shetty claimed to be a cardiac surgeon and philanthropist with more than four decades of experience and the founding chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Limited. The company stated that it operated hospitals, heart centres and primary-care facilities and owned registered trademarks, including the “N-1” device mark and “Narayana Health.”

The plaintiffs alleged that several Facebook pages, YouTube channels and unidentified persons had created and circulated fabricated audio-visual content using Dr Shetty’s name, image, voice and likeness, including through artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.

According to the plaintiffs, one video depicted him as promoting a drug claimed to cure Type II diabetes, while another attributed to him the formulation of a drug for high blood pressure. Other videos purported to offer health advice in his name, including by extracting and adding voice-overs to clips from his earlier public interviews.

The plaintiffs further alleged that some of the content used Narayana Hrudayalaya’s registered marks. They placed on record an email from a member of the public enquiring about the authenticity of one video and expressing interest in trying the medication because it was purportedly supported by a renowned doctor.

In November 2024, the Court passed an ex parte interim injunction restraining the misuse of Dr Shetty’s persona for commercial or personal gain through artificial intelligence, deepfake technology or any other medium. It also restrained infringement of the company’s registered marks and directed Meta and Google to remove specified content and disclose the available details of its uploaders.

The Court also directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue necessary directions for blocking websites found to violate the plaintiffs’ rights. One YouTube channel operator undertook to remove the impugned videos and not upload them again.

The Court noted that the interim directions had been complied with. The content creators did not file written statements despite service, and their right to do so was closed. The plaintiffs did not press their claims for damages or costs.

Court’s Observations

The Court considered whether the suit could be decreed without requiring the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence after the defendants failed to file written statements.

The Court referred to C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda (2012), where the Supreme Court held that non-filing of a written statement does not permit a court to pass a decree mechanically. The Court must first satisfy itself that the plaintiff’s own pleadings do not disclose factual disputes requiring proof.

The Court also referred to Nirog Pharma Private Limited v. Umesh Gupta (2016), which permitted commercial suits to be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where the plaint and documents were of an unimpeachable character. It further considered Satya Infrastructure Limited v. Satya Infra & Estates Private Limited (2013), which held that requiring ex parte evidence may serve no purpose where it would merely repeat a verified plaint supported by an affidavit.

Reconciling these decisions, the Court observed: “Where, however, the plaint and the documents are of an unimpeachable character, and the defendants, despite having suffered an injunction, have chosen not to put forth any version at all, the caution stands satisfied and the Court may proceed on the basis of the pleadings and the material on record.”

The Court noted that the plaint was verified and supported by affidavits, while the impugned electronic content had been placed on record under the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. It further held that the pleadings and documents were deemed admitted because the defendants had filed neither written statements nor affidavits admitting or denying the documents.

The Court found that the videos did not originate from Dr Shetty and attributed to him statements which he had never made. It observed that his name and likeness, along with the company’s registered marks in some instances, were used to lend credibility to purported medicines and medical advice.

The Court stated: “The material is, by and large, self-speaking. The impugned videos do not originate from plaintiff no.1, they attribute to him statements which he never made, and they employ his name and likeness, and in some instances the registered marks of plaintiff no.2, to lend credibility to purported medicines and medical advice.”

Relying on Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India (2024), the Court observed that the unauthorised misuse of a well-known individual’s name, likeness, image and persona infringes personality rights and may damage the individual’s reputation.

The Court held that the misuse in the present case was not confined to commercial appropriation of a well-known person’s identity. It observed that the content attributed claims concerning cures for diabetes, hypertension and cardiac ailments to a cardiac surgeon who had never made those claims.

The Court remarked: “More significantly, the misuse in the present case is not confined to the commercial appropriation of the persona of a well-known individual. The impugned content attributes to a cardiac surgeon claims of cures for diabetes, hypertension and other cardiac ailments which he never made.”

The Court further observed: “The resultant harm, therefore, does not stop at the reputation of plaintiff no.1, but extends to members of the public who may act upon such content, as is evident from the email dated 08.11.2024 placed on record.”

The Court held that the unauthorised use of the “N-1” device mark and “Narayana Health” in the impugned content suggested an association with the company and its healthcare services.

The Court stated: “Insofar as plaintiff no.2 is concerned, the use of its registered marks, including the ‘N-1’ device mark and the mark ‘Narayana Health’, in the impugned content, without any license or authorisation, is evidently intended to suggest an association with plaintiff no.2 and its healthcare services, and amounts to infringement of its registered trademarks within the meaning of Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.”

The Court referred to Global Health Limited v. Denish P. Kalariya (2026), where a trademark-infringement suit was decreed after the injunction had been complied with and the relief remained unopposed.

The Court also relied on Rajat Sharma v. Tamara Doc (2026), which concerned deepfake videos involving a journalist and infringement of registered trademarks. It noted that the plaintiffs in that case were permitted to report subsequently discovered content to the concerned platforms.

The Court permitted the plaintiffs to approach Meta and Google with details of any subsequently discovered content concerning the same subject matter. It directed the plaintiffs to provide supporting particulars and documents on affidavit, following which the platforms were required to independently evaluate the request and act according to their respective policies.

The Court clarified that the plaintiffs could approach it for appropriate directions if the platforms did not act upon such a request.

The Court declined to decide the prayer seeking a declaration that Narayana Hrudayalaya’s marks were well-known trademarks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act.

It observed that such a declaration required examination of the factors under Section 11(6) of the Act, which had not been undertaken in the proceedings. The Court therefore reserved the plaintiffs’ rights concerning that prayer.

Conclusion

The Court made its November 2024 interim order absolute and passed a decree of permanent injunction against the content creators and unidentified defendants in terms of the plaintiffs’ claims concerning personality rights, publicity rights and registered trademarks.

It confirmed the earlier directions requiring Meta and Google to remove the impugned content and disclose the available details of its uploaders. The blocking directions issued to the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology were also made absolute.

The Court permitted the plaintiffs to notify Meta and Google about subsequently discovered content supported by particulars and documents on affidavit. It dismissed the claims for damages and costs as not pressed and disposed of the suit and pending applications.

Cause Title: Dr Devi Prasad Shetty and Another v. Medicine Me and Others (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:8897)

Appearances

Plaintiffs: Advocates Sidharth Chopra, Shilpa Gupta, Deepika Pokharia and Naman Tandon

Defendants: Advocates Varun Pathak and Prasidhi Agrawal; Advocates Ekta Sharma and Surabhi Katare

Click here to read/download Judgment