ANIL KAPOOR V. SIMPLY LIFE INDIA INDIA AND ORS.

BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH

DELHI HIGH COURT

CS (COMM) 652 OF 2023

BRIEF NOTE

On Sep 20, 2023, the Delhi High Court delivered a significant order in the case of Anil Kapoor
v. Simply Life India & Ors, ruling in favor of the widely known Indian actor, Anil Kapoor. The
court issued an ex parte order in response to Suit CS COMM 645 of 2023, where Anil Kapoor
sought protection for various facets of his personality that amounted to certain commercial value
which include his name, voice, dialogue delivery, image likeness, gestures, signatures,and other
elements, primarily concerning their misuse across the internet. including, notably, the phrase
‘Jhakaas.’

The Plaintiff, Anil Kapoor, asserted multiple legal claims, encompassing personality rights,
copyright protection for dialogues and associated works, as well as common law rights of
passing off, dilution,and unfair competition. The plaintiff highlighted instances against each of
the twenty-one Defendants involving the sale and use of his images and taglines for
merchandising, creation of GIFs, and the use of generative Artificial Intelligence to create deep
fakes where Anil Kapoor’s images were morphed into various Disney characters and actors. Anil
Kapoor Contended that the defendants were exploiting various aspects of his persona for
malicious and commercial purposes.The Plaintiff claimed that the use of generative artificial
intelligence to create deep fakes of Anil Kapoor and creation of websites under the name of Anil
Kapoor misleads the consumers and amounts to unfair trade practices.

The Plaintiff cited and placed reliance on the draft ‘Prevention and Regulation of Dark Patterns,
2023’ issued under Section 18 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019 by the Ministry of
Consumer Affairs, Government of India, which seeks to protect consumers against what is
termed as “dark patterns”. Dark Patterns have been referred to mean any practices or deceptive
design patterns using UI/UX (user interface/user experience) interactions on any platform;
designed to mislead or trick users to do something they originally did not intend or want to do;
by subverting or impairing the consumer autonomy, decision making or choice; amounting to
misleading advertisement or unfair trade practice or violation of consumer rights.

The Delhi High Court ruled in favor of Anil Kapoor, granting an ex parte injunction and securing
domain names linked with his identity.The court emphasized the significance of a celebrity's
right to endorse products and how this right should not be obliterated by permitting unlawful
dissemination of their identity.

AMITABH BACHCHAN VS RAJAT NAGI AND Ors.

BEFORE HON’BLE JUSTICE NAVIN CHAWLA

DELHI HIGH COURT

CS (COMM) NO. 819 OF 2022

BRIEF NOTE

The case of Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi & Co. is a recent decision by the Delhi High Court
in India that granted an ex-parte, ad-interim order protecting the misuse of Amitabh Bachchan's
personality rights against the named as well as 'John Doe' defendants, effectively restraining the
world at large from misusing the well-known actor's personality. The court restrained the
defendants from infringing his publicity or personality rights by voice, image, or any other
attribute that was exclusively identifiable with him, for any commercial or personal gain. The
case highlights the emerging and developing jurisprudence on personality rights in India and the
legal protection afforded to celebrities in India.

The court found that the plaintiff was able to make out a good prima facie case in its favor and
that the balance of convenience was also in his favor and against the defendants.

The Delhi High Court while giving the judgment said that the plaintiff was a celebrity whose
image could be exploited for commercial gain. The Court relied on its judgment in the case of
Titan Industries Ltd. v. M/s. Ramkumar Jewelers (2012 SCC OnLine Del 2382) and granted
an ex-parte ad-interim order restraining the defendants and the “world at large” from infringing
his publicity or personality rights by misusing his name ‘Amitabh
Bachchan/Bachchan/BigB/AB’, voice, image, or any other attribute exclusive to him for any
commercial or personal gain.