Tabassum Jamal Hashmi v. Ashok Kumar & Ors.

Relevant Acts and provisions

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Section Order XXXIX Rule 1

Trade Marks Act, 1999

Section 2(m)

Provisions considered: Section 2(m) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, read with common law personality and publicity rights and Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Brief facts

A leading film actor sued an unidentified social media handle falsely offering paid bookings in her name, a publisher of a fabricated statement attributed to her, and several websites and marketplaces selling merchandise and artificial-intelligence generated obscene content using her name, image, voice and film clips without consent. She sought an ex parte interim injunction against the named defendants and a number of online intermediaries to restrain further misuse and compel takedown of listed links and domains.

Issues before the Court

1. Do an actor's name, image, voice and likeness constitute personality and publicity rights protectable against unauthorised commercial exploitation?
2. Does such protection extend to misuse through artificial intelligence, deepfakes and face-morphing technology?
3. Can intermediaries be directed at the ex parte stage to take down infringing content and lock domains?

Court's findings

The Court held that the plaintiff's decades-long career, awards and brand endorsements had given her name, professional moniker, image, voice and likeness a distinctiveness that the public instantly associates with her, entitling her to protect these attributes against unauthorised commercial exploitation, following the line of authority in D.M. Entertainment and Anil Kapoor.

The Court found a prima facie case on three categories of infringement: an impersonating booking account, a publisher's refusal to retract a fabricated statement attributed to the plaintiff despite clarification, and artificial-intelligence generated obscene or morphed content and merchandise using her image, all designed to garner traffic and revenue by trading on her goodwill.

The Court held that dissemination of such manipulated content causes irreparable harm to reputation, dignity and commercial value, and granted relief accordingly, including takedown and domain-suspension directions within fixed timelines.

Decision

Ex parte interim injunction granted restraining misuse of the plaintiff's personality attributes, including via artificial intelligence and deepfakes, with intermediaries directed to take down listed content and suspend domains.

Cases cited

• D.M. Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Baby Gift House, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4790
• Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914
• Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf v. The Peppy Store, 2024 SCC OnLine Del 3664

Authorities referred to in the decision. Please verify each citation in the judgment itself.

Keywords

AI And Deepfakes Dynamic Injunction Intermediary Liability Personality Rights Publicity Rights