Delhi HC Protects Dr Devi Prasad Shetty Likeness from AI Deepfakes

Doctrinal Boundary of Personality Rights and Summary Adjudication

Whether the unauthorized synthetic recreation of a prominent professional’s vocal and visual persona through generative artificial intelligence to promote unverified medical treatments constitutes an actionable infringement of common-law personality rights, especially when the defendants choose not to contest the proceedings, remains a complex issue under Indian intellectual property jurisprudence. Resolving this critical interface of public health and digital impersonation, the High Court of Delhi in DR DEVI PRASAD SHETTY & ANR. Vs MEDICINE ME & ORS. permanently enjoined the defendants from misusing the cardiac surgeon’s likeness and decreed the trademark infringement claims. This dispute exposes the vulnerability of medical professionals whose established reputations can be hijacked in seconds by digital phantom entities using deepfake technology. When clinical authority is forged to market unapproved therapeutics, the injury transcends private commercial harm and directly threatens public safety. Proprietary marks command absolute statutory protection.

By seeking a permanent injunction against a group of non-responsive digital operators, the plaintiffs confronted a recurring modern litigation hurdle: how to enforce proprietary rights against anonymous online actors. Traditional litigation pathways, which rely on extensive trial procedures and viva voce evidence, frequently fail when confronting digital entities that operate behind a veil of online anonymity. In this context, the decision rendered by Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav clarifies that courts can bypass the requirement of formal trial where the documentary evidence is unimpeachable. Summary adjudication serves as a vital weapon against digital piracy.

Statutory Interplay: Order VIII Rule 10 and Trademark Protections

An examination of the statutory framework reveals a delicate procedural balance between the mandate of Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs the court’s power to pronounce judgment upon a defendant’s failure to file a written statement, and the evidentiary standards required to establish trademark infringement. Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which governs the infringement of registered trademarks, a registered proprietor must demonstrate that the impugned mark is identical or deceptively similar to their registered mark. Plaintiff No. 2, Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., successfully produced registrations across Classes 5, 10, 41, and 44, including its distinctive “N-1” device marks. Because the defendants failed to submit any written defense, their right to do so was formally closed.

Procedural law does not, however, demand a mechanical decree merely because a defendant remains absent. Justice Kaurav reconciled the procedural tension by relying on established precedent that differentiates between contested factual matrixes and clear-cut, unimpeachable documentary records. Relying upon the Supreme Court’s pronouncement in C.N. Ramappa Gowda v. C.C. Chandregowda, the High Court recognized that courts must exercise caution before entering a default decree, ensuring that the plaint does not present conflicting versions of the dispute. If the pleadings are coherent and backed by verified affidavits, the necessity of leading oral ex parte evidence becomes redundant. This judicial stance balances efficiency and equity.

Representing the plaintiffs, Mr. Sidharth Chopra, along with Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ms. Deepika Pokharia, and Mr. Naman Tandon, Advocates, argued that requiring a trial would only compound the delay and amplify the injury to the public. Conversely, the interests of major digital platforms were protected by their respective counsels, with Mr. Varun Pathak and Ms. Prasidhi Agrawal appearing for Meta Platforms Inc., and Ms. Ekta Sharma and Ms. Surabhi Katare appearing for Google LLC. While the primary defendants remained unresponsive, the compliance of these intermediary platforms ensured that the court’s interim mandates had already been effectively executed.

Judicial Assessment of Digital Impersonation and Public Risk

Analyzing the substantive merits of the dispute, the court confronted an egregious misuse of clinical authority through deepfake audio-visual media. Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, widely recognized as a pioneering cardiac surgeon with over 15,000 surgeries and recipient of both the Padma Shri in 2004 and the Padma Bhushan in 2012, possesses a highly valuable commercial persona. When Defendant No. 1 circulated a video on April 5, 2024, depicting Dr. Shetty endorsing a diabetes cure, and Defendant No. 2 uploaded a similar post on April 12, 2024, regarding high blood pressure, they systematically exploited this persona. Fabricated identities deceive vulnerable patients. The court observed that the dissemination of unverified medical claims under the guise of an eminent surgeon poses an immediate threat to life and health.

Evidence of actual confusion emerged through an email received by the Chief Marketing Officer of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd. from a member of the public, seeking validation of the advertised alternative treatments. Such communications demonstrate that the deceptive campaign was not a harmless parody but a targeted commercial fraud. Applying the principle of personality rights protection, as affirmed in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India & Ors., Justice Kaurav observed that unauthorized commercial appropriation of a celebrity’s identity causes irreparable reputational harm. The observation, tellingly, was that the digital alteration of voice and image to mimic a trusted medical authority warrants stringent judicial correction.

To prevent procedural delays from paralyzing the remedy, the bench turned to the logic in Nirog Pharma Pvt. Ltd. v. Umesh Gupta, confirming that commercial disputes must be decided expeditiously. Where the records are clear, forcing a plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence merely to repeat the plaint’s assertions serves no practical purpose.

The bench articulated this procedural reality:

“Where, however, the plaint and the documents are of an unimpeachable character, and the defendants, despite having suffered an injunction, have chosen not to put forth any version at all, the caution stands satisfied and the Court may proceed on the basis of the pleadings and the material on record.”

Hon’ble Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav

This clear-cut finding bypasses redundant trial procedures, allowing courts to issue final decrees swiftly when defendants ignore judicial summons.

Injunction Matrix, Intermediary Mandates, and Deferrals

By translating these findings into enforceable relief, the court decreed the suit and made the ad-interim injunction granted on November 28, 2024, absolute. Under the decree, Defendant Nos. 1 to 8 and the unidentified Defendant No. 13 are permanently restrained from exploiting Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness, or voice through any technological format, including artificial intelligence and deepfake tools. To secure the commercial rights of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., the court prohibited any unauthorized usage of the “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA” word mark and the associated “N-1” device marks. Directives to Meta Platforms Inc. and Google LLC to block the identified offensive URLs and disclose the registration details of the rogue operators were confirmed.

Recognizing the ease with which digital infringers can re-upload banned content under different URLs, the court adopted a dynamic compliance mechanism. Justice Kaurav granted the plaintiffs liberty to directly notify Meta and Google of any subsequent infringing content on their platforms. Upon receiving such alerts supported by an affidavit, the platforms must independently assess the request in line with their policies, acknowledging receipt within 24 hours and executing takedowns within 36 hours. If the platforms fail to act, the plaintiffs can approach the court directly for directions. This procedural model curbs the “whack-a-mole” phenomenon of digital trademark and personality rights infringement.

Significantly, the court declined to issue a declaration of well-known status for Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd.’s marks under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which defines well-known trademarks. Justice Kaurav rightly declined to grant this relief because such a declaration demands a rigorous examination of the multi-factor test set out under Section 11(6) of the Act, which governs the criteria for well-known trademarks. Conducting this detailed factual inquiry was impossible in a summary proceeding where no trial took place. The court chose to reserve the plaintiffs’ rights to pursue this declaration in subsequent proceedings. Since the plaintiffs did not press their claims for damages and costs, those prayers were dismissed.

Also Read: Bombay HC Restrains Nectar Life Care in Sun Pharma Trademark Dispute

Procedural Efficiency and the Precedential Value for Digital Interventions

This ruling provides an instructive blueprint for addressing deepfake infringement and identity theft in a fast-evolving technological era. By avoiding the delays of a protracted trial, the court demonstrated that the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, remains flexible enough to counter modern digital harms. Public safety demands swift judicial intervention. When judicial bodies permit plaintiffs to bypass the traditional trial stage in clear-cut cases of synthetic identity theft, they reduce the burden on both litigants and courts.

Establishing a structured compliance protocol on intermediaries like Meta and Google strikes an appropriate balance between private monitoring and judicial oversight. Rather than requiring plaintiffs to file a fresh lawsuit for every newly discovered deepfake URL, the court-mandated mechanism permits rapid out-of-court takedowns. Digital platforms bear a heavy responsibility. This approach ensures that the protective umbrella of a permanent injunction remains effective against transient digital content. By reserving the well-known trademark declaration, the court preserved the evidentiary boundaries of trademark law, ensuring that summary procedures do not dilute the statutory standards of proof.