The Delhi High Court is set to issue an injunction in Raj Shamani’s case against impersonators who are misusing his identity and podcast brand. The suit targets deepfakes, fake endorsements, and unauthorized bots exploiting his “Figuring Out” trademark.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court on Monday took up podcaster and entrepreneur Raj Shamani’s lawsuit seeking urgent protection of his personality rights, trademark, and copyright associated with his popular podcast “Figuring Out with Raj Shamani.”
The matter was listed before Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, who examined several allegations related to deepfake content, fake endorsements, unauthorised chatbots, and misuse of Shamani’s brand identity.
ALSO READ: Raj Shamani Moves Delhi High Court to Protect His Personality Rights from AI Misuse
At the outset, the Court noted that the suit involves separate causes of action, adding that parity cannot be claimed at this stage. Justice Arora also sought clarity on the pro forma defendants, to which Senior Advocate Diya Kapur, appearing for Shamani, stated that the parties include Google, Meta, Telegram, and various government departments.
Presenting the case, Kapur emphasized Shamani’s stature as a leading Indian podcaster, known for interviewing celebrities, industry leaders, and public figures on his show “Figuring Out.” She highlighted that AI-generated deepfake videos falsely portray Shamani as endorsing products, services, and investment schemes.
Kapur underscored instances where fake websites claim that Shamani is available for personalized interactions, leading unsuspecting users to fraudulent platforms.
One major allegation concerns TaxBuddy, an entity allegedly promoting fabricated endorsements in Shamani’s name. Additionally, Kapur revealed the existence of unauthorized Telegram chatbots and channels that use Shamani’s image and identity to solicit funds, promote crypto schemes, sell books, and mislead users into believing they are interacting directly with him.
ALSO READ: Delhi High Court Protects Singer Kumar Sanu’s Personality Rights And Publicity Rights
When the Court asked what type of advice these bots were offering, Kapur explained that users could ask any question and receive responses as though they were directly from Shamani, causing significant reputational and financial harm.
Kapur further pointed out the widespread misuse of Shamani’s name as hashtags to gain traction on social media. However, the Court was unconvinced about providing protection on this point at the ex parte stage.
The suit also highlights YouTube channels repurposing Shamani’s podcast clips, using his logos, copying scripts, and even overlaying their branding on his original content. “They have faded my mark and imposed their own,” Kapur argued, adding that these channels play Shamani’s videos as part of their own monetized content strategy.
The Court was shown transcripts of obscene and demeaning content, allegedly circulating in Shamani’s name. Justice Arora remarked that such issues might require a separate legal action, advising Kapur to consider filing an independent suit.
ALSO READ: Hrithik Roshan vs AI Deepfakes: Delhi High Court Orders to Protect Personality Rights
Appearing for Telegram, Advocate Madhav Khosla stated that while some of the relief sought was “overbroad,” the platform agreed to take down specific flagged chats and cooperate with the proceedings.
Justice Arora directed counsels representing X Corp and Meta to appear for further submissions, scheduling the continuation of the hearing for 2:30 PM.
The court revisited a petition concerning alleged misuse of hashtags, parody videos, and online comments targeting a commercial entity. While the plaintiff sought broad injunctive relief across multiple forms of online content, the court clarified that it cannot issue a blanket order restraining the use of hashtags on digital platforms.
During proceedings, the court emphasized the need for distinction between different types of alleged online misuse. The judge noted that concerns related to the misuse of the plaintiff’s commercial identity must be treated separately from issues involving demeaning comments, memes, or other forms of expression.
“Please consider separating the cause of action with respect to misuse of your commercial [identity] and the demeaning comments etc.,”
the court stated.
The court indicated willingness to grant an ex parte injunction, but clarified that any relief for defamatory memes or satirical content would require a separate, clearly articulated cause of action.
Counsel for one of the defendants highlighted that one of the videos the plaintiff sought to have removed was a parody skit, a satirical interview featuring a Hitler impersonator.
“It’s a parody video of someone interviewing Hitler. It has nothing to do with the plaintiff,”
the advocate argued.
Despite this clarification, the court maintained its stance and noted:
“We will pass injunction.”
This hearing highlights an important intersection of brand protection, online satire, and free speech:
- Hashtags: Cannot be broadly banned without specific justification.
- Commercial Misuse: Courts are more willing to consider urgent relief when brand identity or trademarks are threatened.
- Memes & Parody: Treated differently, often requiring separate legal arguments given their expressive and humorous nature.
- Ex Parte Injunctions: Plaintiffs may receive immediate but limited relief, pending detailed arguments on satire and fair use.
Read More Reports On Personality Rights