High Court
Copyright infringement: Kross awarded injunction against ‘Pushpaka Vimana’, hearing on 12 Apr
MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court has issued an ad-interim injunction restraining further exhibition and distribution of the Kannada film, “Pushpaka Vimana” in any manner or in any medium including cinema theatres, television, CDs/DVDs.
Kross Pictures is a cross-border film and television production company with offices in Seoul, Los Angeles, and Mumbai.
The order restrains the film-makers from awarding any rights in relation to satellite or telecast rights of the film for its exhibition. The Court further directed defendants to disclose to the court the earnings from the film and all contracts with artists involved with the movie.
The Bombay High Court stated that the Kannada film prima facie appears to be a copy of the Korean film called “Miracle In Cell No. 7” the rights to which are owned by Kross Pictures India. The original film was released on 23rd January 2013, first in Korean and then on Youtube in English in 2014. Kross Pictures had moved the Bombay High Court claiming copyright infringement against the producers of the Pushpaka Vimana. Dr. Birendra Saraf, instructed by Anirudh Rastogi of TRA and Ankita Singh of A&P Partners, appearing for Kross Pictures drew the court’s attention to at least fifteen instances where producer AR Vikhyat of Vikhyat Chitra Productions has publicly admitted that he ‘adapted’ the screenplay of the Korean film for Pushpak Vimana.
Kross acquires high-concept and proven intellectual property to produce localized films in different languages. Kross’s Indian operation started in 2015, and has produced the 2016 Hindi film “TE3N” which is based on the Korean film “Montage”, and is currently producing “Suspect X” (directed by Sujoy Ghosh) for Amazon India.
The court order can be seen here:
High Court
Bombay HC likely to protect Kartik Aaryan’s personality rights
Actor seeks Rs 15 crore damages over AI misuse, deepfakes and merch
MUMBAI: In an age where faces can be faked and voices cloned, even stardom needs legal armour. The Bombay High Court has indicated it will pass an order safeguarding the personality and publicity rights of Bollywood actor Kartik Aaryan, following allegations of widespread digital misuse of his identity.
The matter, heard by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, centres on a plea filed by Aaryan seeking a broad John Doe injunction against 16 defendants, including e-commerce platforms, social media intermediaries and unidentified entities. The court noted the concerns raised and said appropriate orders would be issued.
At the heart of the case lies the growing threat of artificial intelligence-driven impersonation. Aaryan’s petition flags multiple instances of deepfake content circulating across platforms such as YouTube and Instagram, where his likeness has allegedly been used to create fabricated videos, including false romantic link-ups and objectionable scenarios designed to drive engagement.
In one particularly alarming example, the actor’s legal filing cites AI-generated visuals that falsely associate him with controversial global figures, including Jeffrey Epstein. The plea argues that such content not only misleads audiences but also causes serious reputational damage.
The concerns extend beyond content to commerce. The suit alleges that unauthorised merchandise bearing Aaryan’s name and image is being sold across platforms such as Amazon, Flipkart and Redbubble, without his consent. Additionally, the actor has raised red flags over AI-powered chatbots that mimic his voice and simulate conversations, warning of potential misuse in fraudulent activities.
Aaryan’s filing underscores that he is the registered proprietor of the trademark “Kartik Aaryan”, with his name, voice and likeness carrying significant commercial value. The unauthorised use of these attributes, the plea states, leads to “immediate and irreparable harm” to his goodwill.
Seeking both preventive and punitive relief, the actor has requested a permanent injunction restraining entities from exploiting his identity in any form be it name, voice, signature or distinctive dialogue style. He has also sought damages amounting to Rs 15 crore for alleged commercial misappropriation and reputational loss.
The case highlights a larger legal and cultural moment, where the lines between reality and replication are increasingly blurred. As AI tools become more accessible, courts are now being called upon to define the boundaries of identity in the digital age, where a face may be famous, but control over it is no longer guaranteed.
