Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Bombay High Court: In an application filed by Kartik Aaryan, seeking to protect his personality rights, against unauthorised use of his registered trade mark “Kartik Aaryan” and AI-generated content, the Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the plaintiff was entitled to an ad interim injunction and further directed the removal of infringing content within 36 hours.
Background
The plaintiff, a well-known film actor, whose presence in movies and brand endorsements has leveraged his personality attributes over which he has exclusive rights. The plaintiff instituted a suit to assert the statutory right conferred by reason of registration of the trade mark “Kartik Aaryan” and also his personality/publicity rights.
The plaintiff sought a restraining order against identified/unidentified individuals/entities, seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, including restraint against unauthorised use of his name, image, and registered trade mark “Kartik Aaryan”. He further sought the removal of infringing content, including fake social media accounts, unauthorised advertisements, AI-generated and pornographic videos, and a prohibition on the sale of merchandise or services falsely suggesting association with him.
Issue
Whether the impugned material, prima facie, constituted infringement of personality/publicity rights, trade mark rights, and right to privacy, warranting the grant of an interim injunction and directions to intermediaries for removal of such content.
Analysis
At the outset, on perusal of the material on record, the Court noted that the impugned merchandise and online content prima facie indicated unauthorised use of the plaintiff’s personality attributes and suggested a likely association or endorsement. The Court noted that the contents uploaded on platforms like YouTube, Instagram, etc., left no room for doubt about the unauthorised exploitation of the plaintiff’s personality attributes. Further, the infringing website advertised itself as a medium for booking the performances by the plaintiff, implying a false association with the plaintiff and carrying a strong possibility of duping the public.
The Court held that prima facie, the impugned material demonstrated an immediate requirement of a restraint order. Further, at the interim stage, there cannot be any objection to the relief of the injunction and deleting the infringing URLs.
The Court stated that obscene and disparaging content uploaded on digital platforms needs urgent deletion/delisting. The Court noted that the AI Chatbot responded to users like the plaintiff, and thus the plaintiff’s persona’s voice, image, and likeness were being commercially exploited without consent. The Court highlighted that, prima facie, the contents did not demonstrate that there was any dissemination of information available in the public domain.
“The right of publicity protects an individual against unauthorised exploitation of their personality attributes, including their name, image, likeness, voice and other distinctive attitudes.”
Decision
The Court held that Kartik Aaryan was entitled to an ad interim injunction in the aforesaid terms. Further directed that intermediaries, upon being notified of specific URLs by the plaintiff, shall remove such content within 36 hours, subject to their right to raise objections.
[Kartik Aaryan v. Vinsm Globe (P) Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 9466 of 2026, decided on 15-4-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the applicant: Senior Advocate Birendra Saraf with Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Aman Saraf, Amruta Thakur, Unnati Gambani, Advocates i/by Anand and Naik
For the defendants: Nishad Nadkarni, Nirupan Lodha, Aasif Navodia, Khushboo Jhunjhunwala, Jaanvi Chopra and Rakshita Singh, Advocates i/by Khaitan and Co. for Defendant 6 and 12.
Charu Shukla, Reeti Shetty, Advocates i/by Charu Shukla for Defendant 8.
Harit Lakhani, Abhishek Mookherjee, Advocates i/by Shardul Amarchand Mangaldas and Co. for Defendant 9.
Navankur Pathak and Neeti Nihal, Advocates i/by Saikrishna and Associates for Defendant 13
