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 a commercial suit instituted by plaintiff, Konidala Pawan Kalyan, seeking permanent injunction restraining misappropriation of personality and publicity rights, infringement of copyright, passing off, and allied reliefs, with an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC seeking ex-parte ad-interim protection against identified and unidentified infringers, Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J., passed John Doe order protecting Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights.
In the instant, the plaintiff is a widely known public figure, having a distinguished career spanning nearly three decades as a film actor, producer, and public personality, and is presently serving as the Deputy Chief Minister of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
It was averred that the plaintiff’s attributes, his name “Pawan Kalyan”, titles such as “Power Star”, “PSPK”, photographs, voice, speech patterns, screen persona, and digital presence, are instantly and solely associated by the public with the plaintiff and enjoy protection under constitutional, statutory, and common law frameworks.
The grievance arose from large-scale unauthorised commercial exploitation of plaintiff-Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights, by various entities and unknown persons, including —
-
Sale of unauthorised merchandise such as T-shirts, hoodies, mugs, posters, calendars, footwear and accessories through online marketplaces.
-
Hosting and dissemination of AI-generated videos, voice replicas, images, deepfakes, GIFs, and synthetic content, falsely suggesting endorsement or association with the plaintiff.
-
Creation of impersonation accounts and misleading event listings using the plaintiff’s name and image.
Upon perusal of the pleadings and documents, the Court observed that there was no dispute that the plaintiff is a known public figure, enjoying immense popularity and influence across India and globally. The Court noted that over three decades in cinema and public life, the plaintiff had acquired commercial brand value with regard to his name, image, voice, and likeness.
Relying on D.M. Entertainment (P) Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790; Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914 and Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store, (2024) 2 HCC (Del) 253, the Court held that celebrity status inherently grants proprietary rights over personality and associated attributes.
The Court found that, prima facie, Defendant 1 (John Doe) and Defendants 7 to 9 were using the plaintiff’s attributes for sale of merchandise without authorisation; Defendant 10 was misusing the plaintiff’s name and image for commercial promotion of events; and Defendants 11 and 12 were enabling unauthorised AI-based exploitation of the Pawan Kalyan’s Personality. The Court held that such unauthorised use prima facie amounts to violation of the Pawan Kalyan’s Personality Rights.
The Court further held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and that continued availability of the infringing content would cause irreparable injury, warranting ex-parte ad-interim relief.
Pending further proceedings, the Court issued following injunctive directions —
-
Restraining the infringing defendants and all persons acting through them from using, exploiting, or misappropriating the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness, or voice, whether through physical or digital media, including AI-based technologies such as deepfakes, generative AI, morphing, and machine learning.
-
Directed online marketplaces to take down and delist infringing goods, furnish KYC details of infringers, and ensure compliance within stipulated timelines. Entities facilitating AI-generated impersonation were restrained from enabling such content and directed to remove infringing URLs.
-
Directed intermediaries to furnish Basic Subscriber Information and IP login details to assist the plaintiff in identifying unknown infringers.
In relation to certain social media content, the Court distinguished between infringing impersonation and long-standing fan pages and held that fan accounts may continue subject to clear disclaimers, failing which the platforms were directed to disable such accounts.
[Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar, CS (COMM) 1336/2025, Decided on 22-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
J. Sai Deepak, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Himanshu Deora, Mr. Rahul Mehta, Mr. Arpit Choudhary, Mr. Krumal Mehta, Ms. Anupriya Alok, Ms. Shambhavi Sharma, Mr. Sanat, Ms. Shambhavi Bhardwaj, Ms. Karen Koya and Ms. Dhwani Vora, Counsel for the Plaintiff
Ms. Shilpa Gupta and Ms. Surabhi Pande, Counsel for the Defendant 2
Ms. Srishti Dhoundiya, Counsel for the Defendant 3
Ms. Mishthi Dubey, Counsel for the Defendant 4
Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Vani Kaushik and Mr. Rohith Venkatesan, Counsel for the Defendant 5
Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakaran and Ms. Varsha Jhavar, Counsel for the Defendant 6