Landmark Case on Personality Rights and AI Threats
Landmark Case Overview
This case is considered a landmark in recognizing and enforcing the rights of celebrities and public figures against unauthorized commercial exploitation. The Honourable Court, while examining precedents on intellectual property, personality rights, and jurisprudence, took a pragmatic approach by extending protection against emerging threats such as artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.
Factual Background
Plaintiffs
Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (Plaintiff No.1): A world-renowned cardiac surgeon, philanthropist, and Chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. With over 25 years of experience, he has contributed significantly to cardiology and founded several healthcare foundations and institutions. He was also featured in the Netflix series The Surgeon’s Cut. His reputation as a healthcare innovator makes him a public figure entitled to protect his personality rights.
Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. (Plaintiff No.2): A public company incorporated in 2000, known for its registered trademarks Narayana Health and Narayana Hrudayalaya. It operates several specialty and multi-specialty hospitals across India. Its main hospital in Bangalore is internationally recognized and houses the world’s largest pediatric cardiac ICU.
Defendants
The defendants include several identified and unidentified individuals managing social media handles and websites. Defendants 1 and 2 created a Facebook page titled Medicine Me and QDD Millano Nightlife TV, while Defendants 4–8 ran a YouTube channel. They were accused of creating, uploading, and sharing fake and misleading videos featuring manipulated images and doctored content of Plaintiff No.1 to promote health products and services for illegal commercial gain.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
- Personality Rights: Dr. Shetty, as a public figure with reputation and identifiability, holds enforceable personality rights. Unauthorized use of his image or persona violates his right to publicity.
- Trademark Infringement: The defendants’ unauthorized use of Narayana Health’s registered marks infringes the plaintiff’s trademark rights under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, causing irreparable harm to both the hospital and its patients.
- Goodwill and Public Interest: Misuse of Dr. Shetty’s persona damaged his personal reputation and deceived the public into believing false medical claims and advice, undermining trust in genuine healthcare.
- Technological Manipulation: The use of manipulated videos and deepfake technology poses new threats to personality rights, affecting Dr. Shetty’s goodwill and eroding public trust in authentic medical guidance.
The plaintiffs urged the court to grant injunctive relief to safeguard their rights and protect public interest.
Defendants’ Position
There were 13 defendants in total, divided into identified and unidentified categories. Defendant No.5 expressed willingness to delete the infringing content. However, many unidentified defendants (anonymous Facebook and YouTube operators) did not appear before the court. Consequently, the Court issued an ex parte order against the absent defendants, prioritizing the immediate protection of the plaintiffs’ rights.
Issues Before the Court
- Whether Plaintiff No.1 (Dr. Devi Shetty) could claim enforceable personality rights and seek injunction against their unauthorized use?
- Whether the defendants’ use of registered trademarks Narayana Health and Narayana Hrudayalaya constituted infringement and passing off?
- Whether interim injunctive relief should be granted, and what protective measures the court should adopt to address misuse through emerging technologies like AI and deepfakes?
Court Analysis
Hon’ble Justice Mini Pushkarna presided over the case and conducted a structured examination of the claims.
Recognition of Personality Rights
The court recognized that Plaintiff No. 1 is a public figure with a reputation extending beyond India. As a renowned surgeon, philanthropist, and global healthcare leader, he holds enforceable personality rights. Although personality rights are not explicitly mentioned under Articles 19 and 21, the court reaffirmed, through precedents, that they are an intrinsic part of these Articles.
The dual test—examining reputation and identifiability—was also satisfied in this case, further establishing Plaintiff No. 1’s rights.
Trademark Protection and Goodwill
Plaintiff No. 2’s marks had gained statutory and common law protection through consistent use and public recognition. Any unauthorized or commercial use of these marks amounted to infringement and passing off. The court stressed that the reputation and consumer recognition of Narayana Health made it essential to prevent all deceptive misuse.
Irreparable Harm and Public Interest
The court observed that the impugned content could mislead vulnerable groups into unsafe medical practices, damaging the plaintiffs’ image and endangering public health. Thus, the balance of convenience lay in granting an injunction in the plaintiffs’ favor.
Technological Challenges – AI and Deepfakes
The court highlighted the rising threat of deepfake technology, which can replicate an individual’s likeness with alarming accuracy. This creates false endorsements and erodes public trust. The court stressed the need for extending legal protection against such digital manipulations to safeguard both personal dignity and public confidence.
Decision
The court found a strong prima facie case and granted extensive interim relief:
- Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction: Defendants 1–8 and 13 were restrained from misusing Plaintiff No. 1’s persona (name, likeness, image, videos) for any personal or commercial gain, including future technologies like AI and deepfakes.
- Trademark Injunction: Defendants were prohibited from infringing Plaintiff No. 2’s registered trademarks, including deceptive use of “Narayana Health” or “Narayana Hrudayalaya.”
- Takedown Orders: Facebook (Defendant 9) and Google/YouTube (Defendant 10) were directed to remove infringing content and disclose account details of the publishers.
- Broader Preventive Measures: Plaintiffs were allowed to approach Defendants 9 and 19 to remove additional infringing content during proceedings, with liberty to seek further orders.
- Telecom and Internet Blocking: Defendants 11 and 12 were ordered to notify internet service providers to suspend violative content affecting plaintiffs’ rights.
Analysis
This case is a landmark in fortifying personality and publicity rights in India, especially for individuals whose reputations have global recognition. It sets a precedent against the exploitation of such rights on digital platforms.
The judgment also addresses the growing challenges of artificial intelligence and deepfakes, showing judicial adaptability to technological threats. The welfare-oriented approach emphasized protecting vulnerable sections of society, recognizing that safeguarding reputation and goodwill is both a private right and a matter of public importance.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision demonstrates the proactive role of Indian courts in adapting legal principles to the digital era. By upholding personality rights and acknowledging the dangers of deepfakes, the court strengthened both individual dignity and consumer protection.
This judgment stands at the intersection of property law, constitutional rights, and technology law. It sends a strong deterrent message against unauthorized exploitation of celebrity persona while underlining the judiciary’s readiness to address novel digital challenges.
