IP Case Law › Other › Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section Order XXXIX Rule 1Section Order XXXIX Rule 2
Provisions considered: Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in a suit asserting personality, publicity and copyright claims.
Brief facts
A well-known film actor sued numerous defendants for misusing his name, image, voice and signature catchphrase across the internet, including false endorsement as a motivational speaker, sale of merchandise bearing his likeness, artificial-intelligence generated deepfakes morphing his face onto other persons, animated images, ringtones, and squatted domain names incorporating his name. The plaintiff sought an ex parte interim injunction restraining these activities, along with directions to lock infringing domain names and block objectionable content generated using his likeness.
Issues before the Court
- Do unauthorised artificial-intelligence generated deepfakes and morphed images using a celebrity's likeness infringe personality and privacy rights?
- Does sale of merchandise and provision of services using a celebrity's name, voice and catchphrase without consent amount to misappropriation of personality rights?
- Are domain names incorporating a celebrity's name liable to be locked?
Court's findings
The Court held that a celebrity's endorsement right is a significant source of livelihood and that unlawful dissemination of merchandise bearing his face or persona without authorisation cannot be permitted to continue. Relying on the Supreme Court's decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, it held that the right to privacy protects a person's name and likeness from being used for advertising or other purposes without consent, reinforcing the common law right of publicity available to a celebrity.
The Court found, as a central holding, that technological tools including artificial intelligence, deepfakes and face-morphing now make it possible for unauthorised users to imitate a celebrity's persona with ease, and that such misuse, including morphing the plaintiff's face into objectionable content, constitutes actionable dilution and tarnishment of his personality rights regardless of whether the defendant profits from it.
The Court held that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favoured an ex parte injunction restraining all forms of artificial-intelligence enabled and conventional commercial misuse of his persona.
Decision
Ex parte interim injunction granted restraining unauthorised commercial and artificial-intelligence based misuse of the plaintiff's persona; infringing domain names ordered locked and links blocked.
Key legal principle / ratio
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights, reinforced by the constitutional right to privacy, protect against unauthorised commercial exploitation of name, image, voice and likeness, including through emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, deepfakes and face-morphing; such misuse, whether for direct monetary gain or otherwise, constitutes actionable dilution and tarnishment and warrants injunctive relief, including against unidentified infringers and domain-name squatters.
Cases cited
- R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu, (1994) 6 SCC 632
- Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s Ramkumar Jewellers, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382
Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.
Keywords
AI And Deepfakes Domain Names Dynamic Injunction Personality Rights Publicity Rights
Read the judgment
More Other judgments
Other
Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors.
A celebrity's publicity rights in his name, image and persona may be enforced through an omnibus injunction that binds not only named defendants but extends to blocking directions against telecom and internet intermediaries, where…
Domain NamesDynamic InjunctionOnline InfringementPersonality RightsOtherArijit Singh v. Codible Ventures LLP & Ors.
A celebrity's personality and publicity rights protect his name, voice, vocal style and other identifying attributes against unauthorised commercial exploitation, including through artificial-intelligence voice-cloning tools that …
AI And DeepfakesDynamic InjunctionMoral RightsPersonality RightsOtherD.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House & Ors.
Every individual, and particularly a celebrity, possesses an enforceable right of publicity in the commercial value of his persona, including name, likeness, voice, style and mannerisms, which can be licensed to a corporate entity…
Character MerchandisingFalse EndorsementPassing OffPersonality Rights