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.
Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, by the popular actor Ajay Devgan for protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the unauthorised use of the actor’s name, image and persona constituted an infringement of his Personality Rights. Thus, the Court granted interim injunction in favour of Ajay Devgan and directed blocking and disabling of all infringing websites and disseminating content that violated his Personality Rights.
Background
The plaintiff, Ajay Devgan is an acclaimed actor with a career spanning 4 decades. He has starred in numerous successful films and has won several national and international awards for the same, including the National Film Awards and the Padma Shri. His achievements include iconic performances, commercially successful film franchises, acclaimed directorial ventures, and the establishment of a leading state-of-the-art visual effects studio NY VFXWAALA.
The plaintiff contended that he enjoys personality rights over all facets of his persona, including his name and stage name ‘Ajay Devgan’, ‘Ajay Veeru Devgn’, his voice, likeness and image and is therefore entitled to control the commercial use of such attributes especially by third-parties.
The plaintiff further contended that his image and personality enjoy immense goodwill and commercial value. His massive fan following on social media further indicates the distinctiveness and exclusive public association of his name, image and persona.
The defendants in the instant case are entities that are alleged to be infringing upon the personality and publicity rights of the plaintiff. Defendant 1 is an entity offering fake bookings for an appearance or performance by the plaintiff. Defendants 2 to 5 are sellers unauthorizedly selling posters, stickers, sweatshirts and other merchandise on their websites bearing the plaintiff’s likeness. Defendant 6 is a YouTube channel creating unauthorized AI-generated deepfake content of the plaintiff. Defendants 8 to 11 are Facebook pages posting AI-generated deepfake images of the plaintiff with other female celebrities in an unsavory manner.
The plaintiff had contended that the inappropriate content on the social media platforms gravely harms the plaintiff’s dignity and reputation, and the pornographic websites, anonymous and illegal, ought to be blocked.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s voice, name, image, likeness and persona has acquired immense goodwill, distinctiveness and commercial value. Perusing the material-on-record, the Court opined that the plaintiff is a well-known face in India and has acquired a celebrity status over the course of his successful career.
Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice and image are protectable elements of his personality rights and he is therefore entitle to seek injunctive relief against its exploitation and abuse by infringing parties. The Plaintiff is also prima facie entitled to protect himself against the circulation of morphed pornographic content and AI-generated images portraying him in obscene setting with other celebrities including female celebrities.
The Court observed that the balance of convenience lies in favour of the plaintiff, and the continuing availability of the infringing content would cause irreparable injury to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has therefore, made out a case for ex-parte ad interim injunction against the infringing Defendants. The Court also noted that with respect to the unsavory posts uploaded on Facebook portraying morphed images of the plaintiff with other female celebrities, the petitioner could have approached the concerned social media platform first. That would have been a more cost-effective and time-sensitive process. Hence, the Court stated that if in future the plaintiff were to approach the Court without first approaching the intermediary, the plaintiff would not be entitled to an ex-parte ad-interim injunction.
Accordingly, the Court gave the following directions:
-
Defendants 1, 2, 6 to 17, their associates, affiliates, agents and all persons acting through them from directly or indirectly were restrained from misappropriating the plaintiff’s name, image, voice and likeness for any personal or commercial gain.
-
Defendants 7 to 13 were directed the take down the infringing URLs.
-
Defendants 15 (Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology) and 16 (Department of Telecommunication) were directed to issue appropriate orders to Internet Service Providers for blocking infringing websites, URLs and Domains.
The matter was further listed for 30-4-2026.
[Ajay Alias Vishal Veeru Devgan v. The Artists Planet, C.S.(COMM) No. 1269 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Pravin Anand, Ameet Naik, Madhu Gadodia, Dhruv Anand, Abhishek Kale, Udita Patro, Nimrat Singh, Dhananjay Khanna, Unnati GambaniPranav Nair, Advocates
For the Defendants: Manas Raghuvanshi, Vivek Ayyagari, Misthi Dubey, Mamta Rani Jha, Rohan Ahuja, Shruttima Ehersha, Varun Pathak, Yash Karunakaran, Mritunjoy Roy, Nidhi Raman, CGSC, Om Ram, Mayank Sansanwal, Advocates