High Court
Emami VS HUL: Bombay high court restrains Emami to not use ‘Glow & Handsome’ trademark until further notice
NEW DELHI: In a recent development, the Bombay High Court has restrained FMCG company, Emami, to not use its ‘Glow and Handsome’ trademark till further notice, saying that prima facie Hindustan Unilever (HUL) had used it first in its brand.
The order was passed by Justice SC Gupte on Monday on an application filed by HUL under the trademark act. HUL’s counsels submitted documents which showed that the mark was adopted by the company in September 2018, and it has also asked for permission from the Food and drug administration to change the name ‘Fair and Lovely’ to ‘Glow and Handsome’, which was cleared on 2 August 2020.
HUL had recently dropped the word ‘Fair’ from its skin cream product for men and women and renamed it to ‘Glow & Handsome.’
HUL had approached the court last week seeking to restrain Emami from using the trademark.
However, Emami claimed that it was the proprietor of this trademark, and was going to launch a skincare cream for men under the same name.
"… plaintiff (HUL) prime facie appears to be a prior adopter and user of the mark "Glow & Handsome"," the high court said in its order.
The court noted that the maker of Dove soap and Surf detergent already launched its goods in the market with this trademark whereas Emami was still at the stage of adopting a process of launching its goods.
"Its (Emami) application for registration of that mark is also of a subsequent date," the order said. It also said that HUL had advertised its brand sufficiently.
"At this threshold stage, it is reasonable to see that there is a concrete likelihood of confusion and deception in the public, if identical marks are allowed to hold the field for popular and much sold commodities" said the court.
The judge said that until the final disposal of the matter, Emami deserves to be restrained from using the name ‘Glow and Handsome.’
The next hearing will take place in two weeks.
Follow Tellychakkar for the consumer facing news & entertainment
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?
