Bombay High Court Protects Personality Rights Of Kartik Aryan, Directs Take Down Of AI-Generated & Disparaging Content
The Bombay High Court, while protecting the ‘personality rights’ of Bollywood actor Kartik Aryan, observed that the Artificial Intelligence (AI) generated content with regard to the actor is, prima facie, obscene and disparages his reputation and lowers his brand value.
Single-judge Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, on April 15, passed an interim order protecting Aryan’s personality rights and ordered various social media intermediaries to delete or take down content which is unauthorised, objectionable and sexually explicit, as flagged by the actor in his plea.
Justice Deshmukh noted that Aryan is a popular and well-known film personality having multiple successful films, and well-known for brand endorsement and has awards to his credit and that his presence in movies and brand endorsements has leveraged his personality attributes over which he has ‘exclusive right.’
The judge referred to the material placed on record and the same basically included some fake websites claiming to be booking for the actor’s performances, some merchandise being marketed using fake or AI images of Aryan, and also some websites, fake profiles on social media platforms like Facebook, X, YouTube etc. The material further highlighted AI-generated pornographic content showing Aryan, which was submitted in a sealed envelope.
Having perused the material on record, Justice Deshmukh held that the same indicated unauthorised exploitation of Aryan’s personality attributes.
Insofar as the artificial intelligence chat- bot platform is concerned, the judge noted that such a platform permits the user to chat with the chat-bot which responds as the Plaintiff would.
With these observations, the bench ordered delisting or deleting the objectionable content available on the internet, along with the content created with the help of AI. The intermediaries are directed to pull down such content within 36 hours of it being flagged by Aryan.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court To Pass Order Protecting Allu Arjun’s Personality Rights Against Unauthorized Use, AI Misuse
The Delhi High Court on 17th April, 2026 passed an interim order protecting the personality rights of Telugu actor Allu Arjun.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the order against unauthorized use of the actor’s personality traits including his name, images, voice etc, without his authorization and consent.
The impugned material included the defendants engaging in sale of merchandise using Arjun’s image, pornographic and obscene material and AI Chatbot.
The impugned material referred to an App called “Fake Call Pushpa” which enables an individual to speak to the actor’s AI generated likeness. It was submitted on behalf of the Plaintiff that the App can be used by anyone in any scam involving the actor as it uses video calling feature involving his face.
The counsel appearing for Defendant no. 1- Frankly Retail Private Limited, told Court that it is merely an intermediary and that the impugned link has been taken down after receipt of the plaint on April 15.
The Court asked the counsel to file a compliance report within three days.
The suit has also been filed against commercial use of his personality rights in merchandises for commercial gain without his consent.
Read order here.
Creative Economy: India’s “Creator Economy” Bill Passed in Rajya Sabha
The Rajya Sabha passed the National Creator Economy Bill, 2026, a first-of-its-kind legislation aimed at providing a formal legal framework for the millions of social media influencers, YouTubers, and digital artists in India.
The bill, which was met with both praise and scrutiny, seeks to define “Digital Content Creators” as a professional category, entitling them to social security benefits, standardized contract templates, and a streamlined mechanism for resolving payment disputes with brands and agencies.
Regulatory Oversight vs. Freedom
A key feature of the bill is the mandatory registration for “Professional Creators” who earn above a certain annual threshold. While the government argues this is necessary to ensure tax compliance and consumer protection, digital rights activists have voiced concerns about potential overreach. The bill includes strict guidelines for “clear disclosure” of paid partnerships and AI-generated content to prevent the spread of misinformation. Furthermore, a new “Creator Welfare Fund” will be established, funded by a small cess on digital advertising, to provide health insurance and retirement benefits to full-time digital professionals.
Growth Prospects India’s creator economy is currently valued at over INR 10,000 crore and is growing at a staggering rate of 25% annually. By formalizing this sector, the government hopes to attract more venture capital investment and turn India into a global “content factory.” Influencer marketing agencies have welcomed the move, stating that standardized contracts will reduce the “wild west” nature of the current market. As the bill moves toward the President’s desk for final approval, the digital landscape in India stands on the brink of its most significant structural transformation since the arrival of high-speed 5G.
Flipkart loses ‘MarQ’ trademark case in Delhi high court
The Delhi high court has dismissed e-commerce firm Flipkart’s appeal claiming exclusive rights over “MarQ”, its private label for electronic appliances launched in 2017, in a trademark dispute with Delhi-based Marc Enterprises.
Justice Tejas Karia dismissed the appeal filed by Flipkart against the order dated 27.10.2018 read with order dated 30.10.2018 in T.M. No. 12 of 2018 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. The ruling was pronounced on 10 April, while the written order was released later.
The dispute dates back to 2018, when Marc Enterprises approached a Delhi trial court seeking an injunction against Flipkart’s use of the “MarQ” trademark. The trial court restrained Flipkart, prompting the company to move the Delhi High Court.
In January 2018, Justice Najmi Waziri allowed Flipkart to sell its remaining “MarQ”-branded inventory until 30 January and advertise the products for its Republic Day sale, subject to maintaining accounts of such sales.
Flipkart had argued that “MarQ” is visually and structurally distinct from “MARC”. Marc Enterprises countered that it holds registered rights over the “MARC” trademark across multiple classes, while Flipkart’s “MarQ” was not registered at the time of filing of the suit by Marc Enterprises.
Flipkart launched MarQ in 2017 as a private label spanning televisions, air conditioners and washing machines, positioning it as a global electronics brand. While Marc Enterprises, established in 1984, sells electrical products in similar categories under its registered trademark MARC.
Flipkart has sought time from the Court to clear the stock of the inventory within 4 weeks and the same has been allowed with consent. Flipkart has been directed to comply with the order by May 15, 2026.
Read order here.
Delhi High Court declines immediate injunction in Dhurandhar 2 dispute
The Delhi High Court has declined to grant an immediate interim injunction in a commercial dispute over the proposed OTT release of the film “Dhurandhar 2”, instead directing the defendants to maintain detailed accounts of revenues generated from the film’s exploitation.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela was hearing a suit filed by Trimurti Films Private Limited against B62 Studios Private Limited and others including Super Cassettes Industries Private Limited seeking an ex parte ad-interim injunction over alleged infringement of rights linked to earlier works.
The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendants from exploiting “Dhurandhar 2”, alleging that it infringed rights connected to the film “Tridev” and related intellectual property.
While declining interim relief, the court directed the defendants to maintain records of all revenue arising from the exploitation of the film ‘Dhurandhar 2‘ from March 19, when it was launched.
The court further observed that these records may be called for at a later stage, including in a sealed cover, if required. This direction ensures that financial equities can be safeguarded pending final adjudication.
Observing that no urgent restraint was warranted at this stage, particularly in view of a statement by the primary defendant that no OTT release of ‘Dhurandhar 2’ was planned before mid-May 2026, the court opted for a balanced approach that preserves financial records pending further adjudication.
The hearing saw detailed arguments concerning historical rights linked to the film “Tridev”. The dispute highlights issues of copyright ownership and assignment in the context of legacy film content being reused in contemporary productions.
No bar on reporting facts but don’t add embellishments: Bombay HC to Republic TV in Anil Ambani defamation case
The Bombay High Court on 16th April, 2026 verbally told Republic TV and its editor Arnab Goswami not to add any “embellishments” while reporting about the financial transactions and the ongoing investigations against businessperson Anil Ambani.
Justice Arif Doctor did not pass a gag order against the news channel but asked Goswami to tone down the tenor of his reporting against Ambani.
While no one can be stopped from reporting on legal proceedings, it must be confined to facts emerging from court orders and records, the judge said.
Ambani had in March filed a defamation suit against Republic TV and Goswami claiming that the reports on the news channel about his financial transactions caused irreparable damage to his reputation. His petition sought a temporary injunction against ARG Outlier, the parent company of Republic TV, Goswami and other unknown entities.
At an earlier hearing, the judge had asked Republic TV and Goswami to reduce the rhetoric in his reporting. The court had also refused to curb the news channel from reporting Ambani, but said that it should not publish “below-the-belt” news.
Declining to pass a restraint order, the judge listed the matter for further hearing on April 29.
Bombay High Court restrains use of ‘NSE’ mark by fake social media accounts
The Bombay High Court recently barred the use of the registered “NSE” trademark by social media platforms and websites seeking to lure investors with stock tips and market advice.
Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh passed the order in an interim application filed by the National Stock Exchange of India (NSE) in an IP suit alleging misuse of its against unknown persons.
The Court observed that these actions posed a risk of deceiving the public. It was noted that this deception had, on at least one occasion, led to a senior citizen investor losing a significant amount of money through the use of the email/domain “nseservices.in”.
NSE claimed that numerous fraudulent accounts and channels on social media, including those on X Corp and YouTube, were employing the “NSE” trademark in their account names, handles and videos.
This content, which featured stock tips, projections and predictions, misleadingly suggested to viewers that it originated from the exchange itself.
The High Court had dealt with a similar case in 2024, where it ordered social media platforms to remove AI‑generated fake videos of NSE’s MD and CEO. That earlier order was later fine‑tuned on May 8, 2025, mainly to align the takedown timelines with the IT Rules, 2021.
In the present case, Justice Deshmukh restrained John Doe entities from infringing and passing off the “NSE” trademark and from misrepresenting any association with NSE. The Court ordered X and YouTube to promptly remove or disable the specified accounts and channels, along with any other infringing accounts or channels that utilise the “NSE” mark or impersonate NSE or its officials.
This action was ordered to be taken within 36 hours of notification by NSE, provided NSE furnishes the necessary evidence, including URLs, account details, and screenshots.
The Court clarified that the restraint did not restrict individual expression or financial advice, but such content could not be presented as originating from NSE or by using the registered “NSE” mark.
It permitted intermediaries to approach the Court where NSE’s takedown requests concern content that, in their view, does not infringe or indicate association with NSE.
Read order here.
Sanjiv Goenka gets personality rights protection from Delhi HC over morphed content: Not mere humour or parody
The Delhi High Court agreed to protect the personality rights of industrialist Sanjiv Goenka, owner of Indian Premier League (IPL) franchise Lucknow Super Giants, on 15th April, 2026.
The court was hearing a plea filed by Sanjiv Goenka, alleging abusive social media content during the ongoing IPL season. Goenka’s counsel reportedly flagged multiple instances of posts misusing his likeness through morphed images circulating online.
It was submitted on behalf of Goenka that his likeness was being misused through a series of morphed images and videos, many of which created false narratives of incidents that never occurred. Multiple instances were pointed out where Goenka’s face was superimposed onto other persons, including fabricated depictions suggesting violent or inappropriate conduct.
During the hearing, the court also discussed the limits of free speech. The court observed that public figures are bound to face commentary and even lampooning and “nobody can say that no one should use my name or image at all.” But, at the same time, the Bench made it clear that when content involves face morphing and creates false narratives, it crosses into objectionable territory.
Social media intermediaries submitted that they are not the creators of the content and function as neutral hosts. They argued that their obligations arise only upon specific legal notice, in line with safe harbour protections.
They also cautioned against the misuse of such court orders and said that broad directions for disclosure of user details or takedowns could have a chilling effect on free speech, particularly in cases involving public figures and ongoing public events. They suggested a balanced mechanism where content may be flagged to them for takedown, with liberty to approach the court in case of disputes.
After examining the submissions, the court observed that a balance must be struck between freedom of expression and protection of reputation. It proceeded to grant protection to Goenka’s personality rights. The court also indicated that it would consider directing disclosure of Basic Subscriber Information and IP logs to identify the origin of the content.
Read order here.
Madras High Court Temporarily Restrains Illegal Broadcast Of Vijay Starrer “Jana Nayagan” Movie
The Madras High Court on 16 April,2026, granted an interim injunction restraining internet service providers (ISPs) and cable operators from illegally streaming the “Jana Nayagan” movie, starring Actor Vijay.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy granted the interim relief in a suit moved by the movie’s producers, KVN Productions. The production company had approached the court seeking a permanent injunction restraining the ISPs and cable operators from infringing on the movie and blocking all websites and web pages hosting content related to the movie.
The production company submitted that while the certification of the movie was pending, it was shocked to note that the movie was circulating on social media unlawfully. The company argued that they were the producers of the movie and owners of copyright. Thus, it was submitted that the illegal broadcast would infringe the rights of the company. Taking note of the submission, the court ruled that if the illegal broadcast is continued to be permitted, the company would be put to irreparable loss. Thus, the court ordered an interim injunction restraining the illegal broadcast.
