Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by TV Today Network Limited (plaintiff), a prominent Indian media conglomerate, along with an oral impleadment of Ms. Anjana Om Kashyap, its Managing Editor for Special Projects, as Plaintiff 2 seeking injunctive reliefs concerning the unauthorized use of the identity and image of Plaintiff 2 through a deceptively similar YouTube channel. Prathiba M Singh, J., held that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction as the mimicry of plaintiff 2’s name (with just a missing letter “p”), usage of her photograph, and potential use of her voice and persona for content dissemination and commercial monetization was not only illegal but also violative of her personality rights.
The factual background that led to the filing of the suit revolves around the unauthorized and illegal use of the name, photograph, and video clippings of Plaintiff 2 on a fake YouTube channel titled “@AnajanaomKashya,” clearly intending to mimic her legitimate YouTube handle “@AnjanaomKashyap-AOK,” which has over 39,000 subscribers. The impugned channel created and disseminated fake or misleading content under the guise of being affiliated with the Plaintiff’s official news media. The name itself was nearly identical, with only a minor typographical alteration (deletion of the letter “p”), and was designed to cause confusion, encash upon the reputation of plaintiff 2, and potentially mislead viewers into believing the content originated from the plaintiff media group.
The plaintiffs argued that the fake page was not only trading upon the substantial goodwill and reputation of both plaintiffs but also infringing upon the personality rights of plaintiff 2. It was submitted that the content disseminated through the fake channel, regardless of its veracity, lacked editorial oversight and responsibility, which are hallmarks of the plaintiff’s professional media enterprise. Consequently, there was a risk of misleading the public, spreading misinformation, and eroding the credibility of both plaintiffs.
On this basis, the plaintiff sought an ad-interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court, upon examination, noted that the mimicry of the Plaintiff’s YouTube channel, including the usage of her image and voice, without authorization, for monetary gain was prima facie illegal and amounted to infringement of personality rights. The Court emphasized the legal implications of such impersonation, especially in the domain of news broadcasting, where editorial responsibility and authenticity are critical. The Court held that even genuine content, if disseminated under such fraudulent pretenses, would be unlawful.
The Court remarked that “the proliferation of fake youtube pages of a well-known organisation or a Personality could result in enormous damage and dissemination of misinformation as the same would lack editorial control. Moreover, in the area of news broadcasting, responsibility has to be taken by the broadcaster and the anchor to ensure that incorrect or misleading news is not disseminated. If fake Youtube pages using the name and image of the Plaintiff 2 are allowed to come up and be disseminated, the same would violate her personality rights. Even if the content is original content, the same cannot be permitted to be disseminated by anyone other than the Plaintiffs who own the Broadcast Reproduction Rights in all their broadcasts. If the content is not genuine and is fake or fabricated, the Plaintiff no.1 company could also be made responsible for such fake news videos put up without its knowledge. It is also common knowledge that youtube pages are created for earning revenues and monetising the same.”
Acknowledging the prima facie case, the Court granted the following interim reliefs:
- Google LLC (Defendant 1) was directed to take down the impugned YouTube channel “@AnajanaomKashya” within 48 hours.
- Google was further directed to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information (BSI) relating to the account in question within two weeks. Based on these details, the Plaintiffs may take steps to implead the actual wrongdoer.
- Google was also directed to file a revenue account statement, disclosing any revenues paid to the fake channel operator, within four weeks.
-
The Court additionally provided that if any more fake profiles or YouTube channels impersonating Plaintiff 2 come to light, the Plaintiffs may inform Google, which shall take them down within 72 hours. If Google objects, it must provide reasons, and the Plaintiffs may approach the Court again.
[TV Today Network Ltd. v. Google LLC, CS(COMM) 634/2025, decided on 20-06-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Hrishikesh Barua & Mr. Utkarsh Dwivedi, Advs. along with Mr. Alman Cleancy, Advocates for plaintiff
Ms. Mamta R Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shrutima Ehersa, Mr. Rahul Choudhary, Ms. Himani Sachdeva & Ms. Devanshi Raj Advocates for defendants
