The Delhi High Court has extended its earlier interim protection of actress Sonakshi Sinha’s personality and publicity rights to Berkowits Hair and Skin Clinic India Pvt. Ltd., after she alleged that the clinic had lifted a video from her YouTube channel, superimposed its own branding on the video and uploaded it on its Instagram and LinkedIn accounts for promotional purposes. The matter came before the bench of Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani.
The matter arises from Sonakshi Sinha’s suit seeking protection of her personality rights against unauthorised exploitation of her name, image, voice, likeness and other attributes of her persona. The suit was instituted, and the Court had on March 20, 2026, granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction covering multiple defendants, including John Does.
During the present proceedings, counsel for the plaintiff submitted that additional infringing content had been identified and that Berkowits, proposed Defendant No.24, had taken a video originally posted by Sinha on YouTube, added text promoting its brand and subsequently posted it on its Instagram and LinkedIn accounts.
Counsel submitted that Sinha had approached the clinic, following which it represented that the video had been removed and that it would not use it in the future. However, according to the plaintiff, the content continued to remain available.
The Court was also informed that the March 20 order contained a John Doe component, covering persons who were unknown when the original injunction was passed but were allegedly engaging in similar acts infringing Sinha’s personality and publicity rights.
The Court allowed the application seeking impleadment of Berkowits as Defendant No.24. It thereafter considered the application seeking extension of the existing injunction to the newly impleaded defendant.
The Court recorded that screenshots of Berkowits’ social media handles supported Sinha’s allegation that the video from her YouTube channel had been lifted and uploaded on the clinic’s Instagram and LinkedIn accounts after superimposing the clinic’s trade name. The Court observed in its order:
“
“The plaintiff submits that defendant number 24 has no licence or authority from the plaintiff or from any other source for using the plaintiff’s content/video in the manner as narrated in the present application. Then prima facie infringement of personality/publicity right. In view of the above, on a prima facie view of the matter, it is directed that Para 49A of order dated 20th March 2026 shall stand extended to and shall apply defendant number 24.”
The Court consequently directed that the protection contained in paragraph 49A of its March 20, 2026 order would also apply to Berkowits. It further directed compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within three weeks.
The plaintiff’s application seeking amendment of the plaint following the impleadment of Defendant No.24 was also allowed. The amended plaint and amended memo of parties were taken on record.
The Court had earlier held that Sinha had made out a prima facie case for protection of her personality rights, restraining defendants from unauthorisedly exploiting her name, image, voice, likeness and other attributes of her persona, including through AI, deepfakes, chatbots and other technological means.
The Court also directed issuance of summons to Defendant No.24, with the matter to proceed in accordance with the applicable timelines for filing of the written statement and replication.
The matter is listed for December 14, 2026.