Delhi High Court: In a suit was filed by Ankur Warikoo (plaintiff 1) a prominent personal finance educator, digital content creator, best-selling author, and motivational speaker seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringement of personality and publicity rights and passing off, along with other ancillary reliefs, Amit Bansal, J., granted a John Doe injunction restraining unknown persons from misusing his name, image, voice, or likeness including through AI or deepfake technology for commercial or personal gain and misuse of the registered mark ‘Warikoo’ and directed social media platforms to take down infringing content within 36 hours.
The present suit was instituted by plaintiff 1 and Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff 2), a company founded by plaintiff 1 that offers online educational content under the brand ‘WebVeda by Ankur Warikoo’. The Plaintiffs possess considerable public recognition and digital influence, with Plaintiff 1 boasting over 15.1 million followers across platforms. He has received accolades including recognition by Fortune India’s ‘40 Under 40’ in 2014 and Forbes India’s Top 100 Digital Stars in 2022, and has authored four books, one of which earned the Crossword Bestseller Award in 2024. The Plaintiff 2 owns the registered trademarks “Warikoo” under classes 35 and 41 and relies heavily on the goodwill of Plaintiff No. 1 to operate its business and generate revenue, which exceeded ₹15.46 crore and ₹13.71 crore in the financial years 2023-24 and 2024-25, respectively.
The plaintiffs seek protection against the unauthorized creation and circulation of deep fake videos featuring Plaintiff 1. These videos falsely depict him promoting dubious WhatsApp groups promising insider stock market tips. The infringing content falsely attributes financial advice to plaintiff 1, misleading viewers to join investment-focused WhatsApp groups purportedly endorsed by him. These groups have been traps for unsuspecting investors, urging them to invest money into suspicious digital applications, often resulting in financial loss when their funds are frozen or rendered inaccessible.
The unauthorized use of Plaintiff 1’s name, likeness, voice, and persona in these manipulated videos not only infringes his personality rights but also tarnishes his reputation and credibility. The deep fakes began surfacing around August—September 2024 and have since proliferated across social media platforms like Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp, operated by Defendant 2 (Meta). The plaintiffs have flagged these instances using Defendant 2’s Brand Rights Protection (BRP) tool, but takedowns have been inconsistent and inadequate.
The Court recognized the novel and complex challenge posed by deep fake technology in the digital era, particularly when such content targets well-known public figures like Plaintiff 1. It acknowledged the right to personality and publicity as inherent in every individual, particularly celebrities whose identity holds commercial value. The impersonation of such personalities using AI-generated content without consent amounts to a grave infringement of their fundamental and proprietary rights. It was noted that the deep fake content in question not only infringed plaintiff 1’s right to identity and persona but also exposed the public to potential fraud, financial exploitation, and misleading inducements.
The Court remarked that the possibility of harm is aggravated by the fact that the plaintiff 1 is known for his content in the field of personal finance education which pertains to (i) how to budget for expenses, (ii) how to plan for emergencies and (iii) how to invest with a long-term horizon, etc. The plaintiff 1 does not provide buy-sell tips in his content, however, given the broad common theme in the content posted by the plaintiff 1 and in the deep fakes, unwary investors are far more likely to falsely believe that the plaintiff 1 is the creator of the content in the deep fakes. Accordingly, continued circulation and/ or publication of the false and misleading posts featuring plaintiff 1 and depicting plaintiff 2 marks will have serious consequences not just for the plaintiffs but also for the public at large.
Thus, the Court concluded that a prima facie case is made out in favour of the plaintiffs, balance of convenience is also in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendant 1 and irreparable loss, harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs in the defendant 1 are allowed to continue publishing/ circulating the aforesaid deep fake contents.
The Court directed the following:
a. The defendant 1/ John Doe(s), their associates, partners, directors, principal officers, family members, servants, agents, or anyone acting for and on their behalf, during the pendency of the suit, are restrained from directly or indirectly misusing, misappropriating or exploiting the name, likeness, image, photos, videos, voice or any other aspects of the plaintiff 1’s persona, which are solely and exclusively associated and identified with him, for any illegal commercial and/ or personal gain, in any manner whatsoever including using Artificial Intelligence, Deep Fake technology or any other technology, in any medium, format or platform;
b. The defendant 1/ John Doe(s), their associates, partners, directors, principal officers, family members, servants, agents, or anyone acting for and on their behalf, during the pendency of the suit, are restrained from misusing, misappropriating and exploiting the name, likeness, images, photos, videos and/ or infringing any rights of the plaintiff 2, including that of the registered mark ‘Warikoo’ and from claiming any association, connection and/ or endorsement with the plaintiffs;
c. The defendants 2 or any person acting for or on their behalf, during the pendency of the suit, are directed to forthwith remove/ disable access to the specific pages, URLs, profiles, accounts, videos, photos, text, content, social media groups, and channels published on any platform owned, managed or controlled by them within 36 hours;
d. In case the plaintiffs, during the pendency of the present suit, discover any falser, fabricated and/ or deep fake content not originating from or associated with the plaintiffs, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach the defendant 2 requesting them to block/ take down, within 36 hours, any such post/ image/ video/ text/ or any other deep fake content, which is published on its platforms or utilizing its platforms. In case defendant 2 raises any doubt, the plaintiffs shall be at liberty to approach this Court for appropriate orders.
e. The defendants 2 is directed to disclose on affidavit before this Court all available details including name, address, email address, contact details, organization and associations, URL, IP address, etc. associated with the page and deep fakes of any other page and deep fake that may come into the plaintiff’s knowledge in future.
[Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe, CS(COMM) 514/2025, decided on 26-05-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishabh Sharma, Mr. Abhishek Shivpuri, Mr. Rajdeep, Mr. Ritik, Mr. Rishabh and Mr. Mayank Bhargava, Advocates for plaintiff
