Delhi High Court makes permanent its order against AI deepfakes falsely using Dr Devi Shetty to promote medicines and medical advice

The plaintiffs alleged that defendants 1–8 had published fabricated audio-visual content on Facebook and YouTube using plaintiff no. 1’s name, image, voice and likeness, including content falsely attributing medical claims to him.

Some videos also used plaintiff no. 2’s registered marks. The plaintiffs contended that the content infringed plaintiff no. 1’s personality and publicity rights, infringed plaintiff no. 2’s trademarks, and risked public health

On 28 November 2024, the Court granted an ex parte interim injunction and issued takedown, disclosure and blocking directions

The directions were complied with; defendants 1–8 did not file written statements, and defendant no. 13 was a John Doe

The plaintiffs did not press their claims for damages or costs

1. Whether, in the absence of written statements, the suit could be decreed on the pleadings and documents without requiring the plaintiffs to lead ex parte evidence

2. Whether the impugned content infringed plaintiff no. 1’s personality and publicity rights and plaintiff no. 2’s registered trademarks

3. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to directions concerning subsequently discovered URLs or content of a similar nature

Under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a court may pronounce judgment where a defendant has not filed a written statement, but must first be satisfied that no fact requires proof at the plaintiff’s instance; the provision is intended to expedite proceedings, not mechanically penalise the defendant (*C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda*)

Where a verified plaint and supporting documents are of an unimpeachable character and no factual dispute requires trial, the court may decide the claim without requiring repetitive ex parte evidence (*Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta*; *Satya Infrastructure Ltd. v. Satya Infra & Estates Pvt. Ltd.*)

The Court recognised protection for a well-known person’s name, image, voice, likeness and other indicia of persona against unauthorised misuse, including through AI and deepfake technology (*Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors.*)

Unauthorised use of a registered mark in a manner suggesting an association with its proprietor’s goods or services may constitute infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

A declaration that a mark is well-known requires consideration of the factors under Section 11(6) of that Act

The plaint was verified and supported by affidavits and electronic material placed on record. The videos were self-speaking: they used plaintiff no. 1’s identity to attribute false medical claims to him and, in some instances, used plaintiff no. 2’s marks to suggest endorsement. No defendant disputed the pleaded facts or documents, and the Court found no factual controversy requiring trial; it therefore considered it appropriate to decide the suit on the existing record

The false medical claims created harm beyond reputational injury, including a risk that viewers might rely on them, as illustrated by the public enquiry placed in evidence

The unauthorised use of plaintiff no. 2’s marks suggested an association with its healthcare services and amounted to infringement

The Court accepted a limited mechanism for addressing subsequently discovered URLs, while leaving the platforms to independently assess requests under their policies and preserving the plaintiffs’ right to seek further court directions

It granted a permanent injunction against defendants 1–8 and 13 in terms of the pleaded prayers, and made the directions to defendants 9–12 absolute

The plaintiffs may notify Meta and Google, with supporting particulars on affidavit, of subsequently discovered URLs or content relating to the subject matter of the suit; if the platforms do not act, the plaintiffs may approach the Court

The claims for damages and costs were dismissed as not pressed, and the request to declare plaintiff no. 2’s marks well-known was left open for determination in appropriate proceedings