德里高等法院永久保护 Arjun Kapoor 人格权，Kriti Sanon 案要求先厘清权利边界

.entry-header

The Delhi High Court has made actor Arjun Kapoor’s protection against the unauthorised use of his name, image and likeness permanent after none of the defendants contested his suit. Two days later, the same judge, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, asked actor Kriti Sanon’s lawyers to first explain what personality rights cover before ruling on her suit.

What did the court decide in Arjun Kapoor’s case? Justice Kaurav decreed Kapoor’s suit on October 14, holding that since no defendant had filed a written statement, Kapoor’s claims were “liable to be treated as admitted,” according to the judgment. “Consequently, no disputed question of fact arises which would necessitate a trial,” the court said. It added that it was “satisfied” that the links Kapoor had flagged “were being used without the plaintiff’s consent and for commercial exploitation.”

Takedowns: The court directed the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) and the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) to take down the links of Florida-based poster seller Ice Poster that remained active, along with the other links listed in Kapoor’s suit.

Permanent protection: The court made its April 29 interim order permanent against nine defendants, including merchandise sellers, a YouTube channel and two Facebook pages.

Future content: Kapoor can submit details of new infringing URLs to Meta and Google through an affidavit. The platforms will “independently examine and evaluate the same and act in terms of their respective policies”. Kapoor can return to court if they fail to act.

The court based its decision on its ruling in Rajat Sharma’s case, which established the same mechanism. In that case, the court also required Meta and Google to acknowledge requests within 24 hours and act within 36 hours. Kapoor’s decree sets no such timeline.

What content did Kapoor flag? Kapoor sued 19 defendants, including merchandise sellers in India, the US and the UK; three YouTube channels; three Facebook pages; Google; Meta; MeitY; DoT; and unidentified persons. One of the YouTube channels was named “@coolpbvideosusingaiartific4096”. The Facebook pages included “Bollywood Baatein”, “Indian Cinema Beauty” and “Beauty Redefined – Actress”.

Etsy and Redbubble were dropped from the suit before the final hearing. Artist Booking Company, the first defendant, sought to be removed from the suit, saying it had already complied with the interim order.

What did the court ask in Kriti Sanon’s case? Sanon has sought protection for her name, image, likeness and other attributes, including against AI-generated content and digital impersonation. At the first hearing on October 16, Justice Kaurav asked Anand to explain the contours of personality rights and identify the attributes of a person that the law protects.

“Give me judgments and your understanding regarding personality rights,” the court said, according to ANI. The court sought research on the extent of this protection and whether the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division should hear such cases. It said it would consider passing a comprehensive order after examining the material.

The case will next be heard on October 29.

When have courts refused personality rights protection? Most personality rights suits result in broad takedown orders, but courts have refused or narrowed relief in several cases:

Raghav Chadha: In July, the Delhi High Court ordered the removal of certain defamatory posts against the Rajya Sabha MP but held that his suit did not involve personality rights. The court said most of the content constituted criticism of his political decisions.

Janhvi Kapoor: In August, the court refused to order the blanket takedown of fan pages, saying such an order could affect free speech.

Meenakshi Chaudhary: In September, the court restrained sexually explicit content but left her claims of commercial exploitation open pending evidence that anyone had made money from her persona.

CLAT topper: In April, the court held that a single academic achievement does not confer personality rights, although it restrained the use of the student’s name on defamation and trademark grounds.

Rario: In 2023, the court refused to grant an injunction against fantasy sports platforms, holding that no one could claim exclusive rights over publicly available player statistics.

Why does it matter? India has no law defining personality rights, so judges decide each case on its own merits. Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani is also hearing suits filed by Vivek Oberoi, Janhvi Kapoor and Aaradhya Bachchan together to clarify the scope of these rights. An amicus curiae has proposed a five-category test to determine who qualifies as a celebrity.

德里高等法院永久保护 Arjun Kapoor 人格权，Kriti Sanon 案要求先厘清权利边界

主题

标签

正文