Delhi High Court protects Actor Vivek Oberoi's personality rights

The Delhi High Court has recently passed an order protecting the "personality rights" of actor and entrepreneur Vivek Oberoi.

The High Court has restrained entities from misusing his name, voice and image for commercial or personal gain.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela passed the interim order and held that, considering his "well-known, popular and well-accepted personality", irreparable loss would be caused to him if no relief was given at this stage.

Vivek Oberoi has a "copyright" over his own personality, which includes his image, likeness, voice, name and signature, and his long-standing career and stellar success in films clearly demonstrate his goodwill, reputation and acceptability, observed the court.

The Delhi High Court on Thursday said it would pass orders in a civil suit filed by actor and businessman Vivek Oberoi seeking protection of his personality and publicity rights, amid allegations of widespread misuse of his identity across digital and commercial platforms.

The matter came up for hearing before Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, who, after taking up the case, observed that the Court would pass orders in the matter.

Oberoi has approached the High Court alleging large-scale unauthorised exploitation of his name, image, voice and likeness through fake social media accounts, unauthorised merchandise and artificial intelligence-generated content, including deepfake imagery.

The suit has been filed against entities including Collector Bazar, ZoomMantra and Indiacontent, along with several unidentified parties named as John Doe defendants.

Oberoi is represented by advocates Sana Raees Khan and Pranay Chitale. The plea seeks a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing his personality and publicity rights.

According to the petition, the actor has asserted that attributes exclusively associated with his identity are being unlawfully used for commercial and other gains without his consent or authorisation.

He has contended that such actions amount to violations of his fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, performer's and moral rights under Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, and common law protections relating to passing off, misappropriation and unfair competition.

Source PTI