High Court
Delhi HC rules in favour of Emami in case against HUL
MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court has upheld the right of Emami’s Fair and Handsome to run its advertisement that state that women’s fairness creams aren’t suitable for men’s tough skin. Rival Hindustan Unilever (HUL) had taken Emami to court claiming its commercial is disparaging to its own brand Fair & Lovely.
HUL claimed in its complaint that brand endorser Vidyut Jammwal’s dialogue “Ab to ladkiyon ki cream chodo” is aimed at its own product Fair & Lovely and that the ad showed a white and pink tube which is its distinctive feature.
The judgment dated 27 March, the Delhi High Court said that it cannot be said that the statements regarding men using women’s cream is false. It even added that the dialogue in question can’t be claimed to be false, misleading, unfair or deceptive and does not amount to generic disparagement.
An Emami spokesperson said, “The ruling by the Delhi High Court reinforces the fact that Fair and Handsome is built on a foundation of truth and trust. We thank the High Court for upholding the truth and the right to free speech. Fair and Handsome has earned immense consumer trust and is among India’s Top 50 Most Trusted Health and Personal Care brands (Brand Equity Most Trusted Brands 2019 study). We take this consumer trust with humility and acknowledge the brand’s huge responsibility to our consumers. We are not surprised by the consistent strategy adopted by HUL to target Fair and Handsome on frivolous grounds across forums. We will endeavour to do everything in our realm to safeguard the best interests of consumers, by empowering them with the right information.”
In June 2018, HUL aired a commercial for Men’s Fair & Lovely and Emami’s Fair and Handsome, claiming their own to be original. The High Court gave the verdict in favour of Emami and restrained HUL from circulating the displaying the commercial.
High Court
Bombay High Court questions AI celebrity deepfakes in Shilpa Shetty case
Justice questions legality of unconsented AI personas, platforms directed to respond.
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court just put AI on the witness stand because when a chatbot starts chatting as Shilpa Shetty without asking, even the bench wants to know who gave permission. The Bombay High Court on Wednesday expressed serious concerns over the legality of artificial intelligence tools that simulate celebrity personalities without consent, during a personality rights suit filed by actor Shilpa Shetty.
Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, hearing the matter, questioned platforms that allow users to interact with AI-generated versions of actors without authorisation. The court noted that one accused AI chatbot website continued using Shetty’s personality without permission, prompting the judge to ask about the legal basis for such operations.
When the lawyer for the AI company argued that the system relied on algorithms and did not require celebrity consent, Justice Deshmukh challenged the platform’s right to recreate and make public a person’s identity in this manner. She observed that while users uploading photographs raised one set of issues, AI systems generating content based on recognised personalities posed distinct legal and ethical questions especially when the platform itself acknowledged the content was not real.
The court directed the platform to file a detailed response explaining its position.
The case involves Shetty seeking restrictions on more than 30 platforms including e-commerce websites and AI services accused of hosting or enabling misuse of her image and circulation of deepfake content.
The Bench also raised concerns about Youtube commentary videos discussing the ongoing proceedings involving Shetty and her husband, questioning whether unverified discussions could malign parties without journalistic checks.
Counsel for Google, Tenor and the AI entity informed the court that flagged infringing URLs had been removed. Shetty’s team disputed this, leading the court to allow her to file an application alleging non-compliance if links remained active.
Tenor objected to the broad injunction sought, arguing it functions as an intermediary GIF platform without capacity for proactive monitoring. The court directed Tenor to file an affidavit opposing the order.
E-commerce platforms including Amazon stated they had removed unauthorised listings using Shetty’s name and image, and would continue to act on specific notifications.
The court reiterated that directions for intermediaries would operate on a “take-down on notice” basis, requiring removal of infringing content once flagged.
As deepfakes blur the line between real and rendered, the Bombay High Court isn’t just hearing a case, it’s asking the bigger question: in the age of AI avatars, who really owns your face?
