Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has granted a John Doe interim injunction to protect the personality rights of Andhra Pradesh Deputy Chief Minister Pawan Kalyan, restraining unknown persons and identified online sellers and websites from using his name, image, likeness or voice for commercial gain without consent. The Court noted that merchandise and content were being marketed on online platforms by leveraging these attributes and found a prima facie violation of his personality rights. It directed e-commerce marketplaces to remove or delist the impugned listings within a week and to share seller KYC details within three weeks, while also restraining AI-based services from enabling infringing synthetic outputs.

The suit was instituted by Deputy Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh Pawan Kalyan seeking permanent injunctions against misappropriation of personality and publicity rights, copyright infringement, passing off, and ancillary reliefs. The plaintiff alleged unauthorised commercial exploitation of his name, image, likeness, voice, and persona across e-commerce platforms, websites, artificial intelligence tools, and social media platforms.

Also Read: High Courts Cannot Grant ‘No Arrest’ Protection Or Fix Investigation Deadlines While Declining To Quash FIR: Supreme Court

The grievance included sale of merchandise such as apparel, posters, stickers, and accessories bearing the plaintiff’s identity without consent, as well as use of artificial intelligence tools to generate voice, images, and synthetic content imitating the plaintiff. Certain defendants were impleaded as proforma parties to enable enforcement and compliance with court directions.

The plaintiff contended that such unauthorised use resulted in deception, confusion, and dilution of personality rights. Applications were filed seeking leave to place additional documents on record, exemption from pre-institution mediation, exemption from statutory notice under Section 80 CPC, and ex parte ad-interim injunction.

The Court considered pleadings, documents placed on record, and submissions of counsel for the plaintiff and the appearing defendants. The dispute concerned digital misuse of personality attributes and alleged infringement occurring through online marketplaces, AI-based platforms, websites, and social media intermediaries.

The Court recorded that “there is no doubt that the Plaintiff is a known public figure” and noted his career in cinema and public life, observing that “over the course of three decades… [he] has gained commercial brand value with regard to his name, image, voice and likeness.”

Referring to established precedent, the Court stated that “there can be no dispute that this celebrity status inherently grants the Plaintiff, proprietary rights over his personality and associated attributes.”

On examination of the material, the Court observed that “it is prima facie evident that Defendant No.1/John Doe and Defendant Nos.7 to 9, without the Plaintiff’s consent/authorisation are using the Plaintiff’s name, likeness, voice and image for selling merchandise for commercial gains.”

With respect to digital misuse, the Court noted that “Defendant Nos.11 and 12 are using the personality attributes of the Plaintiff for the AI software used on their webpages without the consent of the Plaintiff for commercial exploitation.” It further recorded that “such unauthorised use of the Plaintiff’s attributes… prima facie, amounts to violation of the Plaintiff’s personality rights.”

On balance of convenience, the Court observed that “the continuing availability of the infringing content would cause irreparable injury to the Plaintiff,” and therefore found that “the Plaintiff has made out a case for ex parte ad-interim injunction.”

Regarding social media fan pages, the Court noted that the plaintiff himself had relied on the existence of fan pages to establish celebrity status, and observed that “subject to the account owner(s) specifically including a disclaimer… that it is a ‘fan account’, no further action of take down is required.”

The Court directed that “Defendant Nos. 7 to 12 and Defendant No. 1/Ashok Kumar, their associates, servants, agents, affiliates, holding companies, assignees, substitutes, representatives, group entities, their subscribers, employees and/or persons claiming through them or under them… are restrained from violating the Plaintiff’s personality rights by utilizing and/or in any manner directly and/or indirectly, using or exploiting or misappropriating the Plaintiff’s personality/publicity rights by using the Plaintiff’s name, images, likeness and voice… for any commercial gain… without the Plaintiff’s consent and/or authorization.”

“Defendant Nos. 2 to 4 are restrained from selling and/or facilitating sale of merchandise, which infringes the personality rights of the Plaintiff.” The Court directed that “Defendant No. 2 shall take down the infringing links and/or delist the impugned goods… within one week,” and that “Defendant Nos. 2 and 4 shall provide KYC details of the infringers to the Plaintiff within three weeks from receipt of this order.” The Court also recorded that “Defendant Nos. 3 and 4 have already taken down the infringing URLs,” and that “Defendant No. 3 has also provided the KYC details of the infringers.”

“Defendant Nos. 7, 8 and 9 are restrained from selling and/or facilitating sale of merchandise, which infringes the personality rights of the Plaintiff,” and that they “shall delist the impugned goods sold on their websites… within one week.”

“Defendant No. 10 is restrained from publishing/uploading any material, which infringes the personality rights of the Plaintiff and is also directed to take down the URLs… within one week,” and clarified that “in case Defendant No. 10 fails to comply, Defendant No. 5/Google will reindex the said URL within one week thereafter.”

Also Read: Pre-Grant Opponents Cannot Seek Hearing In Patent Examination: Delhi High Court Rejects Zydus Plea Against Helsinn's Nausea Medication Patent

“Defendant Nos. 11 and 12 are restrained from facilitating and enabling creation of AI generated videos, images and conversational outputs, which infringes the personality rights of the Plaintiff,” noting that “Defendant No. 11 has already taken down the infringing links,” and ordering that “Defendant No. 12 shall take down the URLs… within one week,” failing which “Defendant No. 5/Google will reindex the said URL within one week thereafter.”

In relation to social media platforms, the Court directed that “subject to the account owner(s) specifically including a disclaimer on the profile description that it is a ‘fan account’, no further action of take down is required,” and that “the account owner(s) shall comply within one week, failing which Defendant No. 6 is directed to make the said accounts inactive. Defendant Nos. 5 and 6 will provide BSI and IP login details of the URLs… within three weeks.”

The Court also directed issuance of notice, filing of replies and rejoinders within prescribed timelines, compliance with “Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC within one week,” and that “the digitally signed copy of this order… shall be treated as a certified copy for the purpose of ensuring compliance.”

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiff: Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate, 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, Advocates.

For the Defendants: Ms. Shilpa Gupta and Ms. Surabhi Pande, Advocates; Ms. Srishti Dhoundiyal, Advocate; Ms. Mishthi Dubey, Advocate; Mr. Aditya Gupta, Ms. Vani Kaushik and Mr. Rohith Venkatesan, Advocates; Mr. Varun Pathak, Mr. Yash Karunakaran and Ms. Varsha Jhavar, Advocates.

Case Title: Mr. Konidala Pawan Kalyan v. Ashok Kumar (John Doe) & Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1336/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora