High Court
Dish TV vs Prasar Bharati: DD Free Dish cannot use word ‘Dish’, says Delhi High Court
MUMBAI: The Delhi High Court on Tuesday granted an injunction to direct-to-home (DTH) operator Dish TV (plaintiff) against Prasar Bharati (defendant), preventing the public broadcaster from using the word 'Dish' for its free-to-air DTH platform DD Free Dish. The defendant was handed three months’ time to inform its subscribers of the new name, so as to not cause any confusion.
Terming it as prima facie case of infringement, the single bench of Justice Sahay Endlaw refused to accept the pubcaster’s claim of publici juris.
The plaintiff had instituted this suit for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from infringing the trade mark “Dish TV‟ of the plaintiff and from passing off the defendant’s services as that of the plaintiff by adoption of the name/mark “Free Dish‟ and for ancillary reliefs.
The plaintiff had argued that the world ‘Dish’ was first appropriated by them and is a key component of its trademark. The defended opted for a logo similar in nature, even containing the dish that was a central to the Dish TV logo.
The defendant refuted the charge of similarities in the logo and argued that the exclusive right to the Dish logo cannot be claimed by anyone.
The court was not in agreement with the defendant’s argument of the word “Dish‟ being generic to DTH service or publici juris and/or common to the trade of DTH service for it to be said that adoption thereof by plaintiff for its DTH services cannot prevent others providing same service from using the same for the reason of its being essential for them for describing their service.
“As far as the contention of the counsel for the defendant regarding public interest is concerned, it cannot be lost sight of that the defendant, after ten years changed the name of its service from DD Direct+ to DD Free Dish. It is not the case of the defendant that in doing so, any such consequence followed. The defendant has also not disclosed the need for such change. There is no reason for the defendant to now, upon being asked to make the change instead of affecting the same voluntarily, suspect any such harm to the public. Moreover, the said aspect can be taken care of by providing sufficient time to the defendant to make its customers / subscribers aware of the change including on its own telecast,” the order read.
“Rather, I am dismayed that the defendant, a public sector enterprise, indulged in using another’s trade mark and in spite of the plaintiff objecting thereto, refused to act reasonably. The same is not expected of a public sector enterprise which according to the proclaimed litigation policy of the government is not to be indulged in. It is at least now expected that the officials responsible for conduct of the business of the defendant will bestow attention thereto and take a call, whether it is worthwhile to contest this litigation, obviously at the cost of the exchequer,” Justice Sahay Endlaw further stated.
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?
