Introduction
The rapid growth of digital media has changed the whole dynamics of disseminating information; however, it has also opened new avenues for the misuse of identity, image, and intellectual property. Recently, courts in India have witnessed an increase in the number of cases of unauthorised use of the persona of well-known personalities such as actors and renowned businessmen, using fake videos, manipulated content, and misleading advertisements.
One such matter had come before the Delhi High Court with the name of Dr Devi Shetty v. Medicine Me & ors, where the aggrieved personality, who was a renowned cardiac surgeon, sought protection of his publicity rights, personality rights, and registered trademarks of Narayan Health under his employment rights.
This case is considered a landmark case in terms of accepting and enforcing the rights of celebrities and public figures regarding their identification from unauthorised commercial exploitation. The honourable court in this case, while considering the precedents of intellectual property, personality rights and jurisprudence, adopted a pragmatic approach by including protection even against emerging threats posed by artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.
Case Name: Dr Devi Shetty v. Medicine Me & ors
Decided on November 28th, 2024.
Factual Background
The Plaintiffs’ Relevancy
| Plaintiff | Description |
|---|---|
| Dr Devi Prasad Shetty (Plaintiff No. 1) | Dr Devi Prasad Shetty – a famous and renowned cardiac surgeon, philanthropist and the chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd (Plaintiff No. 1). He was a man of impeccable knowledge in the field of cardiology with 25+ years of experience in the field. Furthermore, he has founded several foundations as well. Founders of great projects such as the Asia Heart Foundation, Rabindranath Tagore International Institute of Cardiac Sciences, and the College of Nursing were also featured in the Netflix series ‘The Surgeon Cut’. His image as a healthcare professional and innovator makes him a public figure, which makes him an entitled man, having the right to protect his personality. |
| Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. (Narayana Health) (Plaintiff No. 2) | Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd (Narayana Health) – A public company incorporated in the year 2000 (Plaintiff No. 2). The company has a few registered trademarks, such as ‘NARAYANA HEALTH’ and ‘NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA’, and operates various speciality and multi-speciality hospitals all over India. The main hospital of Narayana Hrudalaya, situated in Bangalore, is recognised internationally and holds the distinction of being the world’s largest paediatric cardiac ICU. |
The Defendants
The defendants in this case are several identified and unidentified individuals operating social media handles and websites. Specifically, Defendant 1 and Defendant 2 were the founders of Facebook pages named ‘Medicine Me’ and ‘QDD Millano Nightlife TV’, while Defendants 4-8 run a YouTube channel.
They were accused of creating, uploading, and circulating fake and misleading videos having manipulated images, likeness, and doctored content of Plaintiff No. 1. The material was allegedly made to advertise health products and services, thereby deriving illegal commercial gain.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
The counsel representing the plaintiff had made certain points:
Personality Rights
Dr Shetty, through his contributions and recognition, is a public figure with enforceable personality rights. With regard to the principle of determining the public figure status, the two necessary elements, i.e., reputation and identifiability, were satisfied in his case. Any infringement of his image, likeness or persona without his permission leads to the violation of his right to publicity.
Trademark Infringement
The defendant’s unauthorised use of Narayana Health’s registered marks violates the trademark right of the plaintiff as per the Trade Marks Act, 1999. These trademarks have vital importance in terms of recognition of the hospital and their use, which shall lead to irreparable damage to the hospital as well as the patients.
Goodwill and Public Interest
The use of Dr Shetty’s personality not only harmed his image and personal reputation but also deceived the public. The members of the society could be lured into buying medical products or following unverified health advice under the belief that it is given by a renowned and registered medical practitioner.
Technological Manipulation
After the publication of the plaintiff’s video of manipulation and the combination of deepfake technology, pose a new threat to their personality rights. Such an action, if not regulated, would lead to a deep impact on Dr Shetty’s goodwill and undermine the public trust in correct medical guidance.
Need for Injunctive Relief
The aforementioned contents are a threat to the image and reputation of the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiffs plead to the court to take a proactive stand with regard to granting injunctive relief to safeguard both their legal rights and public interests.
Defendants’ Position
There are 13 defendants in this particular case; a few appeared after the suit while the rest did not. Therefore, defendants are divided into two categories, i.e., identified and unidentified.
- Identified Defendants: Some defendants appeared before the Court after the institution of the suit.
- Unidentified Defendants: The remaining defendants did not appear before the adjudicating authority.
Defendant No. 5 showed a willingness to delete the infringing videos; however, the unidentified defendants (operators of anonymous Facebook and YouTube pages) did not come before the adjudicating authority.
The Court passed an ex parte order against the defendant, who was not present at the initial stage of the proceedings, considering the immediate protection of the Plaintiffs’ rights.
Issue
- Whether Plaintiff No. 1 (Dr Devi Shetty) could claim enforceable personality rights and seek an injunction against their unauthorised use?
- Whether the use of registered trademarks “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA” by the defendants constituted infringement and passing off?
- Whether interim injunctive relief would be allowed and, if so, what protective measures the court shall adopt to address misuse via emerging technological sites such as AI and deepfakes?
Court Analysis
Hon’ble Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the case, undertaking a structured examination of the claims:
Recognition of Personality Rights
The court accepted that the Plaintiff 1 is a public figure whose reputation and image extend beyond the territory of India. His status as a renowned surgeon, philanthropist, and global healthcare leader established enforceable personality rights.
The court endorsed that although personality rights are not explicitly mentioned under Articles 19 and 21, through numerous precedents, the court has accepted them as an intrinsic part of Articles 19 and 21.
The dual test was also satisfied in this case. This dual test checks the reputation and identifiability of the individual claiming personality rights.
Trademark Protection And Goodwill
Plaintiff No. 2’s marks had acquired both statutory and common law protection through continuous use and recognition.
Any use of these marks without authorisation or commercial use of these marks amounts to infringement and passing off.
The court put immense stress while deciding the case and opined that the reputation and consumer recognition of Narayan Health are pertinent to prevent all types of deceptive misuse.
Irreparable Harm And Public Interest
The court noted that the impugned content has the traits to mislead vulnerable sections of society into adopting unsafe medical practices.
This leads to a negative impact on the plaintiffs’ persona and image but endangers public health.
The balance of convenience, therefore, shall lie in granting an injunction in favour of the plaintiffs.
Technological Challenges – AI And Deepfakes
Most importantly, the court acknowledged the increasing cases of deepfake technology.
It is pertinent to note that the new invention could replicate an individual’s likeness with alarming accuracy, creating false endorsement.
Furthermore, the court emphasised that it is harmful to extend the legal protection against these digital manipulations to preserve both personal dignity and public trust.
Key Findings At A Glance
| Legal Aspect | Court’s Observation |
|---|---|
| Personality Rights | Dr Devi Shetty was recognised as a public figure with enforceable personality rights. |
| Articles 19 & 21 | Personality rights were acknowledged as an intrinsic part of constitutional protections through judicial precedents. |
| Trademark Infringement | Unauthorised use of “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA” amounts to infringement and passing off. |
| Public Interest | Misleading medical content could endanger public health and justify injunctive relief. |
| AI & Deepfakes | The court recognised the growing threat posed by deepfake technology and supported legal protection against such misuse. |
Decision
After deducing that it’s a strong prima facie case, the court granted extensive interim protection and relief, including the following:
Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction
- Defendants 1-8 and 13 were restrained from misusing or exploiting the plaintiff No. 1’s persona – including his name, likeness, image, and videos – for any commercial or personal advantage without express authorisation.
- The restriction also extended to future technologies such as AI and deepfakes.
Trademark Injunction
- The defendants were strictly prohibited from infringing plaintiff No. 2’s registered trademarks, including deceptive use of “NARAYANA HEALTH” or “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA”.
Takedown Orders
- Defendant No. 9 (Facebook) and Defendant No. 10 (Google LLC/YouTube) were directed to strike down the infringing contents and materials available on social media platforms.
- Furthermore, the court asked the media platforms to disclose the complete details of the account holders responsible for publishing such material and content.
Broader Preventive Measures
- The court authorised the plaintiffs to contact the defendants 9 and 19 to remove any additional infringing content discovered during the pendency of the proceeding, with liberty to seek future orders if disputes arose.
Telecom And Internet Blocking
- Defendants 11 and 12 were ordered to issue notifications to the internet service providers to stop and suspend the found violations of the plaintiffs’ rights.
Summary of Interim Reliefs Granted
| Relief | Direction Issued by the Court |
|---|---|
| Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction | Restrained misuse of plaintiff No. 1’s persona, including AI and deepfake exploitation. |
| Trademark Injunction | Prohibited infringement of registered trademarks “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA”. |
| Takedown Orders | Directed removal of infringing content and disclosure of account holder details. |
| Broader Preventive Measures | Allowed removal requests for additional infringing content during proceedings. |
| Telecom and Internet Blocking | Ordered notifications to ISPs for suspension of violating rights. |
Analysis
This case holds profound significance as it fortifies the applicability of personality and publicity rights in India, especially for those whose reputation commands public recognition, thereby setting a significant precedent for protecting such rights against exploitation on digital platforms.
At the same time, the Court addresses the other pertinent issue that is the threat to personal rights in the era of growing technologies such as artificial intelligence and deepfakes, which shows judicial adaptability to evolving digital threats and marks a progressive step towards aligning traditional legal rights and protection with contemporary technological challenges.
Furthermore, the Court’s emphasis on stopping harm to vulnerable members of the public highlighted its welfare-orientated approach, recognising that the protection of reputation and goodwill is not a matter of private interest but also a pressing concern of public importance, especially in contexts where the misuse of a trusted public figure’s identity could endanger public health and safety.
Key Significance of the Ruling
- Strengthens personality and publicity rights jurisprudence in India.
- Recognises risks posed by AI-generated content and deepfakes.
- Demonstrates judicial adaptability to emerging digital technologies.
- Protects consumers from misleading and fraudulent online content.
- Reinforces the importance of reputation, goodwill, and public trust.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in this case shows a proactive role of Indian courts in adopting legal principles to the digital age. By upholding the sanctity of personality rights and the dangers posed by deepfake technology, the court fortified both individual dignity and consumer protection.
This judgement thus stands at the intersection of property law, constitutional rights, and technological laws. It sends a strong deterrent message against the unauthorised exploitation of celebrity personas while underscoring the importance of a judicial approach in addressing novel digital challenges.
Concluding Observations
- Reaffirms protection of personality and publicity rights.
- Addresses legal challenges arising from AI and deepfake technologies.
- Strengthens consumer protection and public welfare considerations.
- Establishes an important precedent for future digital rights litigation.
- Highlights the evolving role of courts in regulating emerging technologies.
