High Court
Star-Vijay Copyright case hearing next week, TRAI to file counter
NEW DELHI: The petition under the Copyright Act in the Madras High Court challenging the jurisdiction of the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India is to be heard on 15 March 2017 as the regulator has sought more time to file a counter-affidavit in the matter.
The time was also sought for more time as both Star India and Vijay TV amended their plaint and prayer in the light of the order of the in the light of the Supreme Court vacating the stay order earlier granted by the High Court. The Court had initially adjourned to 17 March but preponed it to 15 March as one counsel said he would not be available on 17 March.
The broadcasters have pleaded that the regulator has no jurisdiction over matters relating to intellectual property rights.
The Bench comprising Justice S Nagamuthu and Justice Anitha Sumanth was informed by All India Digital Cable Federation (AIDCF) counsel A L Sundaresan and Star counsel P S Raman about the proceedings in the appeal by TRAI in the apex court. TRAI was represented by P Wilson while Additional Solicitor General G Rajagopalan represented the Central Government.
Even as TRAI objected to the amendment and sought time for a counter, AIDCF informed the court that the notification itself provides that the effective provisions will come into effect after 30 days from date of publication (or in some cases, more than 30 days), hence the stay should not be granted. AIDCF also submitted that even on merits, a stay ought not to be granted.
AIDCF informed the Court that Star may be directed to furnish copies of all documents and pleadings filed, to which the judge orally informed the counsel for Star to furnish the same.
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.
