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 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.
