Delhi High Court: While hearing a plaint filed by the acclaimed actor Vivek Oberoi seeking protection of his personality rights, the Single Judge Bench of Tushar Rao Gedela, J., held that the voice, name, likeness etc. of the plaintiff were protectable elements of his persona. Thus, the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction in favour of the plaintiff, restraining Defendants 1 to 22 from creating or disseminating any AI generated pictures, videos or merchandise that misuses and infringes upon the personality rights of the plaintiff.
Background
The plaintiff is a dynamic, versatile and talented actor of the Indian Cinema with a successful career spreading over two decades. The plaintiff has acted in several movies like ‘Sahitya’, ‘Shootout at Lokhandwala’, ‘Omkara’ and ‘Krrish-3’ and has won several accolades for his many acclaimed performances. The plaintiff has also established himself as a successful entrepreneur and is claimed to be the co-founder of ‘BNW Real Estate’, a company engaged in the development of high-end luxury real estate projects in the United Arab Emirates and is associated with ‘Solitario’, a lab-grown diamond brand, basis whereof plaintiff claims to have acquired substantial goodwill as a businessman. The plaintiff claims to be an avid philanthropist and serve as a global brand ambassador for Ekal Vidyalaya, an organization that empowers tribal children and women in over 100,000 villages across India.
Defendants 1 to 22 are intermediaries and online platforms that are selling infringing merchandise using the plaintiff’s likeness and/or are uploading offending videos created by the use if AI tools. Defendants 23 and 24 are Ministry of Electronics and Information and Technology (‘MEITY’) and Department of Technology, Government of India (‘DOT’), respectively who are stated to be proforma defendants only, to facilitate implementation of the orders.
The plaintiff averred that the defendants are misusing the name, image and other elements of the plaintiff’s persona and doing so in a clandestine and surreptitious manner, without a clear disclosure of their names and addresses. The plaintiff stressed that the illegal and unauthorized infringing activities of the defendants are aimed at misappropriating the plaintiff’s image, name, likeness, persona etc. for their personal gain, profit and popularity.
The plaintiff submitted that the infringement of the copyrights/personality rights of the plaintiff are apparent from certain dishonest traders, who physically affix the plaintiff’s name, images on products such as posters etc., to unlawfully show a nexus, affiliation or association with plaintiff for illegal financial benefits. The majority of the defendants and unidentified parties are alleged to be using technology to morph the plaintiff’s face onto videos and superimpose the same on bodies of other people. AI technology is also being used to create false and misleading images or videos with the plaintiff, along with other celebrities providing incorrect information many times.
Accordingly, the plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic injunction for protection of his personality rights.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the copyright of the plaintiff over his own personality, which include, amongst others, his image, likeness, voice, name, signature, which are distinctive and exclusively associated with him, cannot, prima facie, be doubted at this stage. Further, the plaintiff’s long-standing career and stellar success in films, both in Hindi and in vernacular languages, apart from other performances, clearly demonstrate his goodwill, reputation and acceptability not only in the entertainment world but in the general public as well.
The Court stated that prima facie, all the attributes of the plaintiff’s personality, including his voice etc., are exclusively recognized by the general public and those in the entertainment industry, to the plaintiff alone.
Thus, the Court opined that the plaintiff has a prima facie strong case, the balance of convenience is tilted in favor of the plaintiff and irreparable loss and injury would be caused if the ex-parte ad-interim injunction was not granted.
Accordingly, the Court restrained Defendants 1 to 18 as well as all persons acting on their behalf from creating, sharing, disseminating, any product (including but not limited to clothes, tshirts, post cards, postcards, images, posters, books); content (including audio-visual content, images, videos etc.) through the use of any technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes and Face Morphing.
The Court further restrained them from violating the plaintiff’s personality rights and moral rights by using or exploiting or misappropriating the plaintiff’s (a) name ‘Vivek Oberoi’; (b) voice; (c) image and likeness and (d) other aspects of his persona that are identifiable with him for any commercial or personal gain or otherwise.
The Court further restrained Defendants 1,4,9,10,19,20,21 and 22 were directed to take down all links and websites infringing the personality rights of the plaintiff.
The matter was further listed for 5-8-2026.
[Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar, CS (COMM) No. 105 of 2026, decided on 5-2-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Sana Raees Khan, Pranay Chitale, Udayvir Rana, Aditya Dutta, Dhawesh Pahuja, Advocates