The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained several social media accounts from misusing the name, image, voice and likeness of renowned cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Prasad Shetty through fabricated videos, including those generated using artificial intelligence (AI) and deepfake technology, to promote purported medicines and unverified medical advice.
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav decreed the suit in favour of Dr Shetty and Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., making absolute the interim injunction granted on November 28, 2024. The Court also made absolute its directions to Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC to take down the impugned content and disclose available identifying details of the accounts concerned, in accordance with law.
The suit arose from videos circulated on Facebook and YouTube that allegedly used Dr Shetty’s name, image and voice to falsely portray him as endorsing medicines claimed to cure Type II diabetes and high blood pressure, as well as alternative treatments for hypertension and other cardiac ailments. Some videos also used the hospital group’s registered trademarks, including its ‘N-1’ device mark and ‘Narayana Health’ mark, to suggest an association with the purported treatments.
The Court noted that the impugned videos attributed statements to Dr Shetty that he had never made and used his persona to lend credibility to purported medicines and medical advice. It observed that the harm extended beyond reputational damage to the cardiac surgeon, as members of the public could act on the misleading medical claims. The Court referred to an email from a member of the public enquiring about the authenticity of one such video and expressing interest in trying the medication.
Noting that none of the defendants had contested the suit and that the interim directions had been complied with, the Court held that the material on record established the plaintiffs’ entitlement to a permanent injunction. It also found that the unauthorised use of the hospital group’s registered marks amounted to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court further permitted the plaintiffs to approach Meta and Google with details and supporting documents, on affidavit, concerning any subsequently discovered URLs or content involving similar misuse. The platforms are required to independently examine such requests and act in accordance with their respective policies; if they do not act, the plaintiffs may approach the Court for appropriate directions.
The Court reserved the plaintiffs’ claim seeking a declaration that their trademarks were well-known trademarks, observing that the relevant factors under Section 11(6) of the Trade Marks Act had not been examined in these proceedings. The prayers for damages and costs were dismissed as not pressed.
