This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2025 WIPO IP Judges Forum.
Session 6: Personality Rights
Delhi High Court, India [2025]: Ankur Warikoo and Another v John Doe and Others, SCC OnLine Del 3727
Date of judgment: May 26, 2025
Issuing authority: Delhi High Court
Level of the issuing authority: First Instance
Type of procedure: Judicial (Commercial)
Subject matter: Others
Plaintiff: Ankur Warikoo and Another
Defendant: John Doe and Others
Keywords: deepfake, personality rights, publicity rights, artificial intelligence
Basic facts: Ankur Warikoo (Plaintiff No. 1), a renowned personal finance educator, entrepreneur, author, and influencer with over 15.1 million followers across social media, and Zaan WebVeda Private Limited (Plaintiff No. 2), his company offering online courses under the registered trademark “Warikoo,” filed a suit for injunction against infringement of personality/publicity rights and passing off. Defendants include John Doe(s), which are unidentifiable third parties, who create, publish and make available the infringing content in the form of deep fakes featuring the Plaintiff no. 1 giving investment advice and asking his viewers to join a WhatsApp group for more such tips on stocks that would skyrocket in the upcoming days. Deepfakes surfaced around August to September 2024. Accordingly, continued circulation and/or publication of the false and misleading posts featuring the Plaintiff No. 1 and depicting the Plaintiff No. 2’s marks will have serious consequences not just for the plaintiffs but also for the public at large.
Held: The Court issued directions restraining John Doe(s) from misusing Plaintiff No. 1’s persona (name, likeness, image, voice) or Plaintiff No. 2’s marks in any manner whatsoever including through the use of artificial intelligence, deepfake technology or any other technology. Meta (Defendant No. 2) was directed to forthwith remove specified infringing content within 36 hours, disclose on affidavit all available details associated with the concerned pages and deepfakes, and handle future complaints promptly.
Relevant holdings in relation to Personality Rights: The Delhi High Court observed that irreparable loss, harm and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if defendant No. 1 were allowed to continue publishing/circulating the deep fake contents. The infringing actions would also have serious consequences for the public at large, namely innocent and unsuspecting investors, .
Relevant legislation: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Trade Marks Act, 1999