In a plaint filed by Kajol Devgan before the Delhi High Court under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), for the grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, a Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh granted an ex parte ad interim injunction to Kajol while restraining the respondents and seeking information of the infringing accounts from Meta Platforms Inc. as well as YouTube.
Kajol is a renowned actress who made her debut in the Indian film industry in 1992 and has since established herself in the OTT space as well. Her contribution to Indian cinema has been recognised by several awards, including the Padma Shri and the Maharashtra State Film Awards’ Raj Kapoor Special Contribution Award. It was submitted that Kajol’s personality, name, image, etc., carry immense goodwill and commercial value, as evidenced by the number of followers she has across various social media platforms.
It was asserted that Kajol enjoys exclusive control over her images and other characteristics, as they form her personality and/or publicity rights, and that no other individual or entity has the right to use or imitate any facet of her personality to exploit it commercially without her consent or authorization. Kajol further contended that she was entitled to double protection of her name under personality rights as well as under Sections 28 and 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, since her name is registered as a trade mark in various classes.
It was submitted that the defendants operated websites where they sold merchandise bearing Kajol’s name and photographs and had social media pages where AI-generated content, including vulgar videos with her images were being shared. Kajol further asserted that defendants 9 and 10 had developed AI chatbots using facets of her personality and name, which allowed users to interact with AI characters for vulgar and obscene conversations, ultimately harming Kajol’s reputation and dignity.
The Court held that Kajol had made out a prima facie case for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction and stated that the balance of convenience was in her favour, as irreparable harm and injury would ensue if the injunction were not granted. It was stated that Kajol was entitled to protection against the dissemination of morphed and pornographic content, as well as AI-generated images portraying her in inappropriate clothing, false settings, and inappropriate scenarios.
Thus, the Court restrained respondents 1 to 7, as well as 9 to 10, including John Does, from violating Kajol’s personality/publicity rights by using or exploiting her name, image, voice, likeness or any attribute of her persona without her authorisation, for any commercial or personal gain by the use of technology, till the next date of hearing. The defendants were also restrained from selling merchandise in a manner that infringed Kajol’s personality rights, or her registered trade marks, and they were directed to delist the products from their websites.
Further, the Court restrained the defendants from developing unauthorised AI-generated content or AI chatbots using Kajol’s name, image, likeness, etc. The Court directed Meta Platforms Inc., along with other respondents, to take down the URLs listed in the plaint within 72 hours. The Court directed the disclosure of the Basic Subscriber Information for the Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube accounts within two weeks. Lastly, the Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to block and disable all infringing URLs within 72 hours.
Appearances:
For Plaintiff – Mr. Pravin Anand, Mr. Ameet Naik, Mr. Dhruv Anand, Ms. Madhu Gadodia, Ms. Udita Patro, Mr. Dhananjay Khanna, Ms. Nimrat Singh, Ms. Unnati Gambani, Ms. Bhavya Verma, Mr. Pranav Nair
For Respondents – Mr. Akshay Maloo, Ms. Brinda Nagaraja, Mr. Varun Pathak, Ms. Radhika Roy, Ms. Debditya Saha, Ms. Mamta Rani Jha, Mr. Rohan Ahuja, Ms. Shruttima Ehersa, Mr. Ankit Tripathi
