High Court
Delhi HC orders Zee Hindustan to stop using Rajat Sharma’s name in ads
MUMBAI: Delhi HC has restrained Zee Hindustan from using the name of India TV editor-in-chief Rajat Sharma in any of its advertisements, stating that its latest ad campaign is prima facie illegal. It has directed the channel to remove any hoardings or ads that use Rajat’s name.
Zee Hindustan, to promote its anchorless news channel, had started an advertisement campaign that made reference to some of the popular news anchors including Sharma and Republic’s Arnab Goswami using slogans like “India mein ab Rajat ki Adalat band!” (Rajat’s Adalat is now shut in India!), and “Ab Anchor nahin khabarein khud bolengi, Kyunki aap samjhdaar hain” (Since you are intelligent, news would speak for itself, without any news anchor).
Sharma and his channel India TV filed a suit for an injunction against Zee, claiming that the advertisement is being used to deliberately and maliciously misrepresent and disparage the image of India TV and Rajat Sharma, who has been running the show Aap Ki Adalat on different channels since 1993.
Justice Jayant Nath of Delhi High Court impugned the advertisement saying, “The Hon’ble Court while granting the injunction in favour of Sharma and India TV, refrained Zee from using Rajat Sharma’s name in their advertisements in the electronic and print media or in any other form. The Hon’ble Court has further directed Zee to take down all hoardings containing the impugned advertisements.”
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.
