Case name: Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com and Ors.

Citation: CS(COMM) 956/2025; 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943

Court: High Court of Delhi

Corum/Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia

Abstract

A landmark order by the Delhi High Court addresses for the first time the use of a person’s identity or celebrity status without permission through artificial intelligence. The Court ruled in favour of a plaintiff who claimed that the defendants had used video images and audio recordings and voice samples taken from him without his permission by creating ‘deepfake’ videos using Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI). The decision is part of a spate of cases in India related to “Personality Rights”, seen as a hybrid of Privacy Rights and Commercial Property Rights or Publicity Rights.

Keywords: Publicity Rights, Personality Rights, Deepfake, AI, Domain Name Dispute, Privacy Rights.

Introduction

The rapid growth of novel digital technologies, in particular, Generative AI, has created novel opportunities for the misuse of celebrities’ identities without their consent. Existing intellectual property laws allow for limited protection of these types of activities under copyright and trademark protection, while protection for a celebrity’s persona-the name, voice, signature, and likeness-is emerging through the evolving tort of Personality Rights.

The Delhi High Court, in Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors., had a chance to grant protection to an internationally recognised global icon by deciding against various forms of digital infringement-inclusive of cybersquatting-and non-consensual deep-fake content. It is also an important case because it shows how the Courts are being more proactive in issues concerning the increasing prevalence of AI technology being used with the aim of violating a person’s dignity and other business interests.

Facts

The plaintiff Aishwarya Rai Bachchan has been identified as a highly recognised actress, a former Miss World, and a brand ambassador to many recognised international companies. In order to maintain her rights in her personality traits against unauthorised use, she filed a lawsuit against various defendants (Defendants 1-13) before the Delhi High Court for a permanent injunction.

The plaintiff has identified the following areas where the defendants have infringed her rights to personality and publicity and caused irreparable damage to her reputation and commercial goodwill:

• Cybersquatting: By maintaining the website at the address www.aishwaryaworld.com, the defendant No.1 has tried to give the impression that this is the website of the plaintiff and also deceived the consumers of the world that such a website was authorised by the plaintiff.
• Merchandising: The defendant numbers 3-5 sell plaintiff merchandise, such as T-shirts, mugs, and posters displaying the name and likeness of the plaintiff, without the permission or granted license to the plaintiff for such sales.
• Artificial Intelligence and Deepfake Video/Images: The defendants in this case created and published “deep fake” videos/images generated through Artificial Intelligence, showing the plaintiff’s face on someone else’s body, in an indecent and derogatory manner, typically.
• AI Chatbots: Various defendants utilised and continue to utilise AI chatbots impersonating the plaintiff that have ongoing non-consensual conversations with the public about the plaintiff. The plaintiff has contended that the acts of the defendants amount to violation of the plaintiff’s personality and publicity rights; copyright infringement; and passing off the plaintiff’s name and likeness. Due to such acts, the plaintiff has suffered irreparable injury to her reputation and commercial goodwill.

Issues

The issues before the Court were: (1) whether the defendant’s unauthorized use of plaintiff’s name, likeness, and persona violated her Right of Publicity and Right of Personality; (2) whether using AI-generated simulations of a celebrity violated her right to privacy and dignity; and (3) whether plaintiff was entitled to an emergency temporary restraining order to prevent irreparable harm to her reputation.

Reasoning

While granting relief to the plaintiff in this case, Justice Tejas Karia, based on the precedential decisions taken of late (e.g., Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi, 2022; Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023), has propounded two major reasons for his judgment:

1. Personality Rights are Two-Fold in Nature: The Court explained that the dual nature of Personality Rights has a commercial aspect, ie, the Right to Publicity, through which a person can exercise control and gain financially through the commercial use of their likeness, and there is a dignity aspect, ie, the Right to Privacy, wherein the person has a legitimate claim to live with dignity. The Court further added, “When an individual’s famous likeness is used without their permission. This can not only create a possibility of financial harm but can also adversely affect their ability to live with dignity.”
2. Threats to AI and Deepfakes: The Court recognised a unique threat that AI provides. Not only the simple misappropriation of photographs, but also, through deepfakes, AI technology can create a reality and simulate the experience of conversations through chatbots. The Court held that such technological misappropriation does not represent a simple commercial theft; it attacks the rights of the person to personal autonomy and reputation.
3. Passing Off and Confusion: Aishwaryaworld.com’s business model, along with the sale of their merchandise, will automatically cause consumers to associate the plaintiff with that site and thus give the impression that the plaintiff supports those products/sites. Therefore, this is considered passing off under the law. Further, the Court held that a legal case was made on behalf of the plaintiff. Thus, the Court issued a broad ex parte injunction preventing the defendant from utilising the plaintiff’s intellectual property as well as ordering Google’s intermediary, MeitY, to remove the infringing URL(s).

Critique

According to the judgment in the case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, the decision supports recent developments in technology and how that impacts Indian Intellectual Property Law. The Court has taken note of such technologies as “deep fakes” and “generative AI” to show how fast technology is moving compared to the speed at which new legislation will be enacted to keep up with these technologies.

Positive

Technological Knowledge: The fact that the Court was willing to cite specific technologies demonstrates an ability on their part to apply the law to new technology through case law, far in advance of the time it may take for new laws to come into existence.

Holistic Protection: In linking personality rights to Article 21 of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees a life of dignity to human beings, the Court has defined personality rights as something more than a mere property dispute. This becomes fundamental in the case of deep fake pornographic cases, where the damages involved are moral/reputational and not just financial.

Negative

Definition of “Personality”: Although necessary in this case, the lack of a definition regarding what constitutes “personality rights” under the Indian statutes suggests that most of these determinations will be left to the courts to determine. Critics also note that this creates a limitation on the enforcement of these rights for non-celebrities-the vast majority of people will also be impacted by deep fakes.

Difficulty of enforcement: Whereas the principle of an injunction might be strong, actually being able to enforce one against an unidentifiable actor and/or one operating in the depths of the internet poses unique problems.

Impact

The ruling serves as a serious warning to the creators of content and technology companies that use them regarding the use of names and likenesses of celebrities without permission in AI development and production.

Regarding AI Industry: A ruling that any use, including training, of the names and likenesses of celebrities, including through AI-generated products, without the written consent of the celebrities, will be subject to liability in India.

About Domain Squatters: A confirmation that celebrity names cannot be registered to be used as domain names in bad faith; this decision is in accordance with the WIPO UDRP procedure, yet provides enforcement via civil courts.

Future Litigants: The judgment sets out a summary of the position established by Amitabh Bachchan and Anil Kapoor on which celebrities can draw to support applications for speedy “John Doe”-type orders restraining the mass unauthorised use of their images, names and likenesses.

Conclusion

The case of Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors. signifies a breakthrough in cleaning up the online environment that has adverse implications for the stars and public figures. The adverse consequences for Aishwarya Rai Bachchan were brought about by her commercial exploitation through artificial intelligence, and the case established that while technology knows no geographic boundaries, an individual still maintains control over his/her image and voice. In this respect, the Delhi High Court held that one can balance the celebrity’s commercial interests with the right of every human being to be treated with dignity, thus providing an excellent means of protection against the anticipated rush of deepfake-related lawsuits.

References

1. Aishwarya Rai Bachchan v. Aishwaryaworld.com & Ors, CS (COMM) 956/2025; 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5943
2. Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Ors, CS (COMM) 819/2022
3. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors, CS (COMM) 652/2023
4.  The Constitution of India, Article 21.
5.  The Trade Marks Act, 1999.
6.  The Information Technology Act, 2000.