Delhi High Court granted interim relief to Abhishek Bachchan, observing that unauthorized use of his name, image, likeness, and personality attributes creates public confusion and false perceptions of endorsement, thereby infringing his personality rights and causing reputational harm.
The Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Bollywood actor Abhishek Bachchan, protecting his personality rights from unauthorized commercial exploitation.
Justice Tejas Karia stated that the unauthorized use of Bachchan’s name and personality attributes leads to public confusion regarding endorsement.
The Court stated,
“The misuse of the plaintiff’s name, image, likeness and other elements of the plaintiff’s persona clearly constitutes infringement as the adoption of the aforementioned attributes such as name, image, signature, likeness, etc., without any authorization from the plaintiff, will inevitably cause confusion and create a perception of endorsement by the plaintiff,”
The Court highlighted that failing to grant the injunction could cause irreparable harm to Bachchan’s economic interests, reputation, goodwill, and prestige.
Bachchan’s plea sought protection against the misuse of his name, image, voice, and performances by various websites and YouTube channels for personal or commercial gains.
The Court’s ruling mirrored a similar order issued the previous day in favor of his wife, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, who sought the same protections.
The lawsuit raised alarms about the unauthorized morphing and exploitation of Bachchan’s image by online platforms, including sales of merchandise, wallpapers, and AI-generated deepfake videos.
Bachchan’s request aimed to prevent infringements on his publicity and personality rights, as well as copyright violations tied to his unique attributes, such as his name, image, likeness, signature, and performances, without his consent. He also sought protection against trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, dilution, and defamation.
His counsel, advocate Pravin Anand, informed the Court that defendants were creating AI-generated videos distorting Bachchan’s image and circulating fake photos purportedly signed by him. He noted that unauthorized sales of sexually objectionable material and merchandise were insulting and could lead to misunderstandings.
The Court addressed the growing concerns over artificial intelligence and technology infringing privacy rights, stating,
“The use of technology to depict the Plaintiff in settings that are misleading, derogatory or inappropriate, intrudes upon the Plaintiff’s right to privacy. Such misappropriation is further aggravated by the ease with which online content can be disseminated.”
The Court ruled that unauthorized commercial exploitation of personality rights affects both economic interests and the dignity of individuals, potentially causing irreversible harm to their reputation and goodwill, necessitating judicial intervention. It acknowledged that Bachchan’s name, signature, and images were being misused by several defendants.
The Court stated,
“Considering the pleadings, documents and submissions made by the learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, it is clear that the attributes of the plaintiff’s persona, including his name, images and signature, are being misused by defendant Nos. 1 to 14 and 18, without any authorization from the plaintiff, by employing technological tools, including Artificial Intelligence,”
Consequently, the Court prohibited the defendants from using or exploiting Bachchan’s name, voice, image, likeness, performances, and other unique persona attributes for any commercial or personal gain.
It also restrained them from creating or disseminating any products using AI, machine learning, deepfakes, or face morphing that could dilute Bachchan’s public persona.
Furthermore, the defendants and Google were instructed to remove, disable, and block the URLs specified in the petition within 72 hours of receiving the order. Google was also ordered to provide basic subscriber information of the infringing parties.
Also Read: Delhi Riots Case| FIR Doesn’t Have the Sanctity of Law, It’s a Joke: Umar Khalid
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and the Department of Technology were directed to issue necessary instructions to block and disable the URLs mentioned.
The case is scheduled for its next hearing on January 15.
Bachchan was represented by a team of advocates, including Pravin Anand and Ameet Naik, while Google was defended by advocates such as Shruttima Ehersa and Rohan Ahuja.
Case Title: Abhishek Bachchan v. The Bollywood Tee Shop and Ors.
Read Attachment