Introduction:
In a significant development in India’s evolving jurisprudence on personality rights and digital identity protection, the Delhi High Court recently granted interim protection to entrepreneur and television personality Aman Gupta against the unauthorized commercial exploitation of his identity across online platforms. The Court restrained several unknown individuals and digital intermediaries from using his name, voice, likeness, slogans, personality attributes, and trademarks through fake accounts, merchandise, AI-generated content, deepfakes, and obscene material.
The interim order was passed by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela in the matter titled Aman Gupta v. John Doe/Ashok Kumar and Others. The case marks one of the first instances in India where a court has specifically extended personality rights protection to an entrepreneur and startup investor against misuse through artificial intelligence and deepfake technology.
The suit was instituted by Aman Gupta, widely recognized as the co-founder of boAt Lifestyle and a prominent judge on the television show Shark Tank India. Gupta alleged that multiple unknown entities and online users were unlawfully exploiting his identity and public image for commercial gain and online traffic generation.
According to the plaint, the misuse extended across several forms of digital exploitation, including fake event booking websites, AI chatbots impersonating Gupta, unauthorized merchandise carrying his image and slogans, fake social media accounts, circulation of alleged contact details, and most alarmingly, the creation and dissemination of sexually explicit AI-generated deepfake content using his likeness and personality attributes.
The plaintiff argued that phrases associated with him, including “Hum Bhi Bana Lenge” and “Down, But Not Out!”, had acquired substantial goodwill and independent commercial value due to his public presence, entrepreneurial success, and media visibility. It was also pointed out that trademark registrations had already been secured for these expressions.
The dispute raised critical questions relating to the intersection of personality rights, intellectual property law, privacy rights, freedom of expression, intermediary liability, and the growing misuse of artificial intelligence technologies. The Court was therefore required to examine whether unauthorized digital exploitation of an individual’s identity, particularly through AI-generated deepfake content, warranted urgent judicial intervention.
The Delhi High Court’s order is significant not only because it expands personality rights protection in India but also because it reflects judicial recognition of the unique harms caused by AI-enabled impersonation and deepfake technology in the digital age.
Arguments of the Parties:
The plaintiff, Aman Gupta, argued that he had acquired immense goodwill, reputation, and public recognition through his entrepreneurial ventures, media appearances, investments, public engagements, and association with widely viewed television programs. According to him, his name, image, voice, expressions, catchphrases, and overall persona had become commercially valuable identifiers directly associated with his public identity.
It was contended that several unknown entities and online intermediaries were exploiting this recognition without authorization for unlawful commercial gain. The plaintiff submitted that his identity was being misused in multiple forms, including fake event booking listings, AI-generated chatbot interactions falsely portraying him, sale of merchandise carrying his slogans and likeness, and creation of fake social media profiles.
The plaintiff particularly emphasized the misuse involving artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies. It was alleged that sexually explicit and obscene AI-generated content featuring manipulated versions of his face, voice, and personality traits had been circulated online, causing severe reputational harm and emotional distress.
According to the plaintiff, such unauthorized use violated his personality rights, trademark rights, privacy rights, and rights flowing from his commercial identity. The plaintiff argued that personality rights include the exclusive right to commercially exploit one’s name, likeness, voice, image, gestures, and identifying attributes, and no third party can unlawfully appropriate them for profit or publicity.
The plaintiff further submitted that his catchphrases such as “Hum Bhi Bana Lenge” and “Down, But Not Out!” had acquired secondary meaning and market recognition through continuous public association with him. Since trademark registrations had also been secured for these expressions, their unauthorized commercial use amounted to trademark infringement and passing off.
It was argued that the activities of the defendants were misleading internet users into believing that the plaintiff endorsed, sponsored, or was associated with various products, services, and online activities. Such impersonation, according to the plaintiff, diluted his brand value and caused irreparable damage to his reputation.
The plaintiff also expressed concern regarding fake contact details and impersonation accounts circulating online, arguing that such misuse posed risks not only to his commercial interests but also to public trust and digital safety.
Urgent interim protection was sought on the ground that AI-generated deepfakes and digitally manipulated content can spread rapidly and cause irreversible reputational injury before final adjudication of the dispute. The plaintiff therefore requested immediate takedown directions against offending links and disclosure of details relating to anonymous accounts involved in the alleged misuse.
On the other hand, the defendants included several unknown persons and online intermediaries, including digital platforms and search engines. Since the order was passed at the ex parte ad-interim stage, detailed counter-arguments from many defendants were not yet available before the Court.
However, the online intermediaries appearing before the Court were represented through counsel. Their involvement primarily related to compliance with takedown requests and disclosure obligations under applicable laws governing digital platforms and intermediary liability.
The defendants were expected to contest issues relating to intermediary protection, safe harbour provisions, extent of monitoring obligations, and questions concerning liability for user-generated content. It is likely that some intermediaries may subsequently argue that they function merely as platforms and cannot be held directly responsible for content uploaded by third parties unless specific statutory requirements for takedown are fulfilled.
Nevertheless, at the interim stage, the Court primarily focused on the urgent nature of the alleged harm, particularly in relation to AI-generated sexually explicit content and deceptive impersonation practices.
Court’s Judgment:
The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favour of Aman Gupta and recognized the urgent need to protect his personality rights, trademark rights, and digital identity against unauthorized exploitation.
At the outset, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela observed that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case demonstrating substantial goodwill, reputation, and public recognition associated with his identity. The Court noted that Aman Gupta’s entrepreneurial achievements, public appearances, media visibility, and association with Shark Tank India had made his name and persona commercially valuable.
The Court accepted the plaintiff’s contention that his slogans, catchphrases, image, voice, and overall personality traits had acquired distinctive public association and independent commercial significance. The Bench specifically observed that the manner in which the defendants were exploiting the plaintiff’s name, voice, slogans, and trademarks clearly established that the plaintiff’s personality attributes were unique and exclusively identifiable with him.
A crucial aspect of the judgment was the Court’s recognition of personality rights in the context of modern digital exploitation. The Bench acknowledged that unauthorized use of an individual’s persona for commercial benefit constitutes a serious invasion of proprietary and reputational interests.
The Court also took judicial notice of the growing misuse of artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies. Justice Gedela expressed serious concern regarding the allegations involving sexually explicit AI-generated content featuring the plaintiff’s likeness and observed that such misuse required immediate judicial intervention.
The Court remarked:
“It goes without saying that the sexually explicit material/videos created by the defendants using the personality traits and attributes of the plaintiff, surely is an aspect which needs immediate and urgent consideration.”
The Bench recognized that deepfake technology poses unique dangers because it enables realistic manipulation of a person’s face, voice, and expressions in ways that can severely damage reputation, dignity, and public trust. The Court therefore concluded that failure to grant immediate relief could result in irreparable injury to the plaintiff.
Another important aspect of the judgment was the Court’s acknowledgment of trademark protection for the plaintiff’s slogans and identifiers. Since expressions associated with the plaintiff had already secured trademark registrations, their unauthorized use in merchandise and commercial activities was found to prima facie amount to trademark infringement and passing off.
The Court also considered the issue of deceptive impersonation through fake social media accounts, AI chatbots, and event booking platforms. It observed that such activities falsely suggest endorsement or association by the plaintiff and mislead members of the public for unlawful gain.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using Aman Gupta’s name, likeness, image, voice, videos, GIFs, personality attributes, trademarks, slogans, or contact details without authorization. The injunction specifically extended to misuse through AI technologies and deepfake content generation.
The Court further directed online intermediaries, including digital platforms and search engines, to remove identified infringing links and content. Certain intermediaries were also directed to disclose details such as mobile numbers, email addresses, and user information associated with allegedly fake accounts and infringing activities.
Importantly, the Bench adopted a dynamic approach to digital enforcement by permitting the plaintiff to notify intermediaries regarding newly discovered infringing websites or accounts during the pendency of the proceedings. Upon receipt of supporting material, intermediaries were directed to suspend or lock such domain names and online resources.
This aspect of the order reflects the judiciary’s recognition that online infringement is fluid and continuously evolving. Traditional static injunctions may prove ineffective where infringing websites, fake profiles, or AI-generated content can rapidly reappear through new accounts or domains.
The Court’s order also contributes significantly to the development of Indian jurisprudence concerning personality rights. While Indian courts have previously recognized personality and publicity rights of actors, celebrities, and sports personalities, the present case is notable because it extends similar protection to an entrepreneur and startup investor whose public identity carries independent commercial value.
The ruling further demonstrates how courts are adapting traditional legal principles to address challenges posed by emerging technologies. Deepfake content, AI impersonation, and digital identity theft increasingly blur the boundaries between intellectual property law, privacy law, defamation, and cyber regulation.
By granting urgent interim protection, the Delhi High Court emphasized that the law must evolve to safeguard individuals from technologically enabled exploitation of their identity and reputation.
The matter has now been listed for further hearing on October 1, during which the defendants and intermediaries are expected to place their responses on record. However, even at the interim stage, the order stands as an important precedent recognizing the need for stronger legal safeguards against AI-driven misuse of personality rights in India’s digital ecosystem.