The Delhi High Court heard a plea filed by actor Abhishek Bachchan seeking protection of his personality rights and an injunction against unauthorized use of his name, likeness, photographs, voice, and performances by various online platforms, YouTube channels, and e-commerce websites for commercial or personal gain. The matter was placed before Justice Tejas Karia, who observed that the Court could consider directing Google to remove infringing links, provided that a list of specific URLs was furnished.
The suit raises concerns over the unauthorized exploitation of the actor’s persona, including the sale of merchandise, wallpapers, and videos featuring his image, along with circulation of AI-generated and deepfake videos. The plea contends that such misuse not only violates his publicity and personality rights but also amounts to trademark infringement, unfair competition, and defamation. Bachchan urged the Court to restrain defendants from misappropriating attributes uniquely linked to his identity—such as his name, voice, likeness, and signature—without consent.
Notably, this plea follows a similar action by Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, whose petition was heard by the same judge a day earlier. At that time, Justice Karia had indicated that protective measures would be considered to curb misuse of her image and personality by online entities.
During the hearing, Advocate Pravin Anand, appearing for Bachchan, informed the Court that defendants were producing AI-generated content to distort the actor’s image and circulating fake autographs and morphed visuals. It was argued that sexually explicit content and unauthorized merchandise were being sold online, which was both derogatory and capable of misleading the public.
Justice Karia noted that any direction for takedown could only be issued in a defendant-specific manner. He advised that the plaintiff provide a detailed list of URLs and platforms, including YouTube, Amazon, and Flipkart, as mentioned in the suit. “If you can identify the platform, it can be easily done. This order cannot be granted in general, it must be divided defendant-wise,” Justice Karia observed.
The matter was accordingly passed over for detailed consideration later in the day.
Picture Source :
