Introduction Background and Context:

In Vivek Anand Oberoi v. Collector Bazar & Ors., the Delhi High Court was called upon to confront a rapidly growing digital menace—unauthorized exploitation of a public figure’s identity through artificial intelligence, deepfake technology, fake social media profiles, misleading endorsements, and morphed audiovisual content—where actor and entrepreneur Vivek Oberoi approached the Court seeking urgent protection of his personality and publicity rights, asserting that his name, image, voice, likeness, and other distinctive attributes were being misappropriated across online platforms in a manner that falsely suggested his endorsement, association, or approval, thereby causing reputational harm, commercial dilution, and irreversible injury to his carefully built public persona, and the suit was placed before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela who examined whether the law must evolve to shield individual identity from unchecked technological misuse in the digital ecosystem.

Arguments on Behalf of the Plaintiff:

Appearing for the plaintiff, Advocate Sana Raees Khan submitted that Vivek Oberoi is a well-known and widely recognized personality with a long-standing career in Hindi and regional cinema, entrepreneurship, and philanthropy, whose identity commands immense goodwill and commercial value, and it was argued that the defendants, including unknown John Doe entities, were systematically exploiting this goodwill by creating fake social media accounts impersonating him, selling unauthorized merchandise using his name and image, circulating misleading advertisements implying his endorsement, and deploying AI-generated deepfake videos and images that morphed his face and voice into objectionable, offensive, and deceptive content, which not only violated his right to publicity and personality but also misled the public at large, diluted his brand value, and posed a grave threat to his dignity and autonomy, and it was emphasized that personality rights are an extension of the right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution and include the right to control commercial use of one’s identity, further submitting that once such content spreads digitally it becomes impossible to fully undo the harm, thereby justifying urgent ex-parte protection, especially when monetary compensation alone cannot restore lost reputation or public trust, and reliance was placed on a growing line of precedents where Indian courts have recognized and enforced celebrity personality rights against digital misuse, particularly in the age of artificial intelligence Arguments on Behalf of the Defendants and John Doe Entities: Since the injunction was sought at an interim ex-parte stage, no specific contesting arguments were advanced on behalf of the defendants, many of whom were unidentified or operating anonymously online, which itself underscored the gravity of the plaintiff’s grievance, as the lack of accountability and traceability in digital spaces enables infringers to exploit celebrity identities with impunity, and the Court took note that such anonymity strengthens the need for dynamic and adaptive injunctive relief capable of addressing not only existing infringements but also future manifestations of similar misuse across platforms.

Court’s Judgment and Reasoning:

After examining the pleadings, documents, and nature of allegations, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela held that Vivek Oberoi had established a strong prima facie case for protection of his personality and publicity rights, observing that his name, voice, image, likeness, and other attributes are uniquely and exclusively associated with him in the public consciousness and therefore constitute protectable proprietary interests, and the Court categorically recognized that unauthorized digital exploitation of these attributes—particularly through AI-generated deepfakes and impersonation—poses a real and present danger to reputation and identity, noting that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the plaintiff because allowing such misuse to continue would result in irreparable harm that could not be adequately compensated through damages, and the Court emphasized that personality rights are not merely commercial rights but are deeply intertwined with dignity, autonomy, and self-expression, and held that technological sophistication cannot be permitted to outpace legal safeguards, especially when misuse creates false narratives and deceptive representations capable of misleading millions, and accordingly the Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim dynamic John Doe injunction restraining the named defendants and unknown entities from creating, uploading, publishing, circulating, or monetizing any content—whether AI-generated or otherwise—that exploits or misappropriates Oberoi’s identity without authorization, directing removal of infringing posts, videos, merchandise listings, and fake accounts across digital platforms, and significantly, the Court acknowledged the necessity of “dynamic” injunctions that can be adapted to address new URLs, accounts, or formats as they emerge, thereby ensuring effective enforcement in an ever-evolving digital environment, while also situating the decision within a broader judicial trend that has seen similar protection extended to prominent figures including actors, sportspersons, spiritual leaders, journalists, and content creators, reflecting a clear judicial policy to safeguard personality rights in the age of artificial intelligence.

Court’s Final Directions:

In light of these findings, the High Court restrained all defendants and John Doe entities from infringing Vivek Oberoi’s personality and publicity rights in any manner whatsoever, particularly through AI tools, deepfake technology, impersonation, or misleading commercial exploitation, while granting liberty to the plaintiff to approach the Court for further directions as new instances of infringement arise, thereby reinforcing the principle that identity in the digital age is a legally protected asset deserving of proactive judicial defense.