Introduction:

In the matter titled Salman Khan v. Ashok Kumar & Ors., the Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, dealt with a significant legal controversy surrounding the unauthorized commercial exploitation of the persona of renowned Bollywood actor Salman Khan. The plaintiff, represented by senior advocate Sandeep Sethi along with a team of assisting counsels, approached the Court seeking urgent protection of his personality rights—specifically alleging that various social media entities, e-commerce platforms, and unknown entities (John Does) were unlawfully using the actor’s name, image, voice, likeness, and registered trademarks to promote merchandise, products, and digital content without authorization. The actor asserted that such unauthorized acts not only violated his intellectual property rights but also diluted his public reputation, interfered with his goodwill, and misled the public into believing that the products or services in question were endorsed by him. The Court, while hearing the matter, examined existing jurisprudence in personality rights cases and referred to recent orders passed in similar suits filed by other public figures, including actors Ajay Devgn, Junior NTR (Nandamuri Taraka Rama Rao Jr.), as well as the protection granted to figures like Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, Nagarjuna, Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, Abhishek Bachchan, Karan Johar, Sudhir Chaudhary, and podcaster Raj Shamani.

Arguments of the Plaintiff:

The plaintiff argued that the unregulated use of his persona, including his photographs, video clips, voice samples, signature styles, well-known traits, brand affiliations, and even registered trademarks such as “Being In Touch,” was causing substantial harm to his personality rights. It was submitted that various e-commerce platforms and social media users had launched unauthorized merchandise, including apparel, accessories, posters, and digital goods, falsely communicating endorsement by the actor. The plaintiff further contended that his personality traits and brand equity were intrinsically connected to his professional and personal reputation, and any unauthorized exploitation created confusion among consumers and damaged his economic and moral rights. The plaintiff also stressed that under the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, intermediaries are required to act promptly on grievances relating to violation of intellectual property rights, and therefore, the plaint ought to be treated as an official complaint. He emphasized that intermediaries cannot remain passive conduits once made aware of infringing content, and they have a statutory duty to take action, remove unlawful content, and respond to complaints within the stipulated time frame. Referring to precedents, counsel Sandeep Sethi reminded the Court that in cases involving Ajay Devgn and Junior NTR, the Court had directed platforms to treat the plaint itself as a formal complaint under the IT Rules, and similar relief ought to be granted here. He also argued that with respect to non-intermediary defendants—such as sellers engaged directly in merchandise sales—there existed a clear case for immediate injunction or stay, since these parties were not mere conduits but active exploiters and profiteers of the plaintiff’s persona. The plaintiff insisted that he had an exclusive right over his personality, identity markers, and commercial value that could not be commercially exploited without his explicit permission, and failing to issue prompt directions would worsen the infringement.

Arguments of the Defendants:

Counsels for the social media defendants (intermediaries) accepted notice and submitted that they would comply with whatever directions the Court issued under the IT Rules. While they did not dispute the general position of law concerning intermediary obligations, they emphasized that intermediaries operate within a defined framework and require specific links, URLs, or identifiers to remove or disable access to infringing content. They argued that intermediary liability cannot be presumed and reiterated that intermediary platforms cannot carry out a roving inquiry into all content hosted by them. They further submitted that the plaintiff must identify infringing links for appropriate removal, and any action must be conducted in conformity with safe-harbor protections under Section 79 of the IT Act. With respect to e-commerce sellers and non-intermediary entities, the defendants stated that any action taken against them must be proportionate and subject to verification, particularly if claims of infringement involve third-party sellers operating independently. They insisted that intermediaries cannot be held liable for products sold on their platforms unless specific instances of infringement are brought to their attention. Some defendants also argued that since the proceedings were at the interim stage, the Court must be cautious in issuing sweeping injunctions, especially when some alleged infringers were not yet identified or served.

Court’s Judgment:

After hearing both sides, the Delhi High Court issued detailed directions emphasizing compliance with the statutory framework of the IT Rules, 2021. The Court reiterated its earlier rulings observing that plaintiffs seeking protection of personality rights must first approach the concerned social media intermediaries with grievances before seeking court intervention. Applying this principle, the Court directed defendants 2, 3, 4, and 6—major social media intermediaries—to treat the plaint itself as a formal complaint under the IT Rules and to act upon it within three days. The Court acknowledged their obligation to assess the plaintiff’s complaint against infringing content, remove unauthorized material, and notify the plaintiff if they have any reservations regarding specific links. The Court further directed defendant no. 2 to consider the registered trademark “Being In Touch,” noting that unauthorized accounts deceptively using the trademark were violating intellectual property rights. The Judge clarified that the intermediaries must take adequate action in compliance with Rule 3 and Rule 4 of the IT Rules, which mandate due diligence, grievance redressal, acknowledgment, removal of violative content, and communication of decisions to the complainant. While dealing with non-intermediary defendants—particularly sellers and commercial exploiters—the Court orally observed that it would grant a “stay order” restraining them from continuing activities that infringed upon the actor’s personality rights. The Court emphasized that entities directly engaged in manufacturing or selling unauthorized merchandise cannot seek shelter under intermediary protections, as they are active participants in infringement. Justice Arora also noted the increasing frequency of such personality rights cases and reaffirmed that well-known public figures, including actors, journalists, and digital creators, possess legally enforceable personality rights that cannot be commercially misused by third parties. She highlighted the need for a structured approach where plaintiffs lodge complaints with platforms first, reducing unnecessary litigation and ensuring cooperative regulatory compliance. The order underscored that celebrity identity, goodwill, and brand value are legally protected assets and that unauthorized exploitation constitutes misrepresentation, unfair trade practice, and violation of the right to publicity. By directing swift action from intermediaries and preparing to restrain non-intermediary violators, the Court reinforced the legal framework safeguarding persona rights in the digital age. Thus, the suit marks yet another significant step in evolving jurisprudence around digital impersonation, misuse of celebrity identity, and unauthorized monetization of public image on online platforms.