Case Summary and Outcome

An Indian High Court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of Arijit Singh, a famous Indian singer, restricting multiple entities from violating his personality and publicity rights. The singer filed a suit against AI platforms replicating his voice, businesses selling merchandise with his image, and digital platforms creating GIFs, misusing his personality traits for commercial purposes without consent. The Court found prima facie evidence that these defendants exploited Singh’s personality traits to drive traffic to their website—including creating videos using his name and image to teach users how to replicate his voice with unauthorized AI platforms. The Court agreed with Singh’s submission that freedom of speech and expression “does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.” The Court also observed that AI tools enabling voice replication without consent violated celebrities’ personality rights as they allow unauthorized appropriation of a celebrity’s voice, “a key component of their personal identity and public persona.” The Court directed the defendants to edit/delete all references to Singh’s personality traits in their videos and ordered them (including Google) to disclose the particulars of other defendants.

---

Facts

Arijit Singh, a famous Indian playback singer, filed a suit against multiple entities for violating his personality and publicity rights, “seeking protection of […] his own name, voice, signatures, photograph, image, caricature, likeness, persona, and various other attributes of his personality against unauthorized / unlicensed commercial exploitation, misuse of all hues thereof.” [par. 3]

Defendants 1 to 8 consist of various Artificial Intelligence (AI) platforms, and their operators, that used AI to replicate Singh’s voice and generate synthetic recordings that imitated his singing technique. Some of these platforms provided tools that enabled users to convert text or audio into an AI-generated version of Singh’s voice. They also created contents using Singh’s name and image to teach users how to replicate his voice through AI platforms.

Defendant 9 is a restaurant/pub that used Singh’s name and image without consent to promote an event.

Defendants 11 to 23 are businesses engaged in selling merchandise featuring Singh—including t-shirts, posters, mugs, and other items. These products, marketed on platforms like Amazon, Flipkart, and Meesho, were advertised and sold without Singh’s approval.

Defendants 24 and 25 operate digital platforms that allow users to create and distribute GIFs featuring Singh’s likeness and performances.

Defendants 26 to 31 are domain registrars of websites using Singh’s identity. Some of these entities have also registered domain names such as arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in.

Defendants 32 to 36 include cloud data storage platforms and e-commerce websites such as Google, YouTube, and Amazon, which hosted allegedly infringing content.

Defendant 37 was involved in a virtual reality event where Singh’s name and image were displayed without his consent, misleading users into believing he was associated with the event.

Defendant 38 represents unknown/unnamed individuals or organizations engaged in similar activities whose identities are concealed from the public.

Singh sought an ad-interim injunction against them, seeking relief in light of what he considered to be violations of his personality rights.

---

Decision Overview

Justice R.I. Chagla of the Bombay High Court delivered this order. The central issue for consideration was whether an ad-interim injunction should be granted to restrict the defendants from violating Singh’s personality rights.

Singh submitted screenshots and recordings as evidence of his celebrity status, including streaming platforms’ data, a Wikipedia webpage, Forbes listings, Spotify exhibits, concert records, and other online articles. He contended that the defendants exploited his personality rights for commercial purposes without his consent. Singh further submitted that the distortion or unauthorized dissemination of voice/video recordings of his performances through AI-generated content and GIFs negatively impacted his reputation and jeopardized his career. The singer also considered that there was a violation of Section 38-B of the Indian Copyright Act of 1957. Under this section, performers have a right “to restrain or claim damage in respect of any distortion, mutilation or other modification of his performance that would be prejudicial to his reputation”. Singh sought directions to defendants 32 to 36 (cloud data storage platforms and e-commerce websites) to disclose particulars from some defendants (1 to 25, 37 and 38) and to take down and remove infringing content from their platforms. He submitted that defendants 1, 2, and 7 created and shared videos using his name and image to teach users how to replicate his voice through unauthorized AI platforms. The plaintiff argued that this was not justified under the right to freedom of speech and expression.

The Court noted that judicial precedents have firmly established that “celebrities are entitled to protection of the facets of their personality such as their name, images, likeness, voice, signature, etc. against unauthorized commercial exploitation by third parties.” [para. 16]

Referring to an interim order in Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory [Commercial IPR Suit (L) No.17863 of 2024], the Court reiterated that “personality/publicity rights are vested in celebrities” and that the unauthorized use of their personality attributes would infringe “their valuable personality rights and right to publicity.” [para. 16] The Court cited the Delhi High Court ruling in Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India [2023 SCC OnLine Del 6914], which held that “a celebrity’s right of endorsement” is a “major source of livelihood” that cannot be undermined by allowing “unlawful dissemination and sale of merchandise” featuring their persona without authorization. [para. 16]

Moreover, the Delhi High Court noted that technological tools, such as AI, enable unauthorized users to “imitate any celebrity’s persona.” [p. 22] On this point, it emphasized that it could not “turn a blind eye to such misuse,” which includes “dilution, tarnishment, [and] blurring”—all actionable torts requiring action. [p. 22] The Delhi High Court also condemned domain name squatting and using a celebrity’s identity for commercial purposes—such as making ringtones or GIFs—and granted an order to protect the plaintiff’s personality traits. The Bombay High Court, in the instant case, placed special emphasis on these aspects of the Delhi High Court ruling.

In Anil Kapoor, the Delhi High Court relied in turn on Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu [(1994) 6 SCC 632] which established that, “the first aspect of this right [privacy] must be said to have been violated where, for example, a person’s name or likeness is used, without his consent, for advertising — or non-advertising.” [para. 16] This was also underscored by the Court in the instant case.

Subsequently, the Court reviewed the documents submitted by Singh and recognized him as a “notable singer/performer in India” with “immense goodwill and reputation” and a “celebrity status in India.” [para. 15] The Court prima facie observed that Singh’s personality attributes, including name, voice, image, and likeness, are “protectable elements” under personality rights and the right to publicity. [para. 17] It further emphasized that proving “celebrity status” is only the first step—plaintiffs must also show they are identifiable in the defendant’s unauthorized use, which must be for commercial gain. [para. 18]

The Court held there was enough prima facie evidence that defendants 1-9, 11-25, 37-38, unauthorizedly used the Singh’s personality traits for commercial gain without his permission. It observed too that the defendants were capitalizing on Singh’s popularity to drive traffic to their websites and AI platforms without his consent, therefore violating his personality rights and right to publicity. The Court argued that AI tools that enable voice replication without consent violate celebrities’ personality rights as they allow unauthorized appropriation of a celebrity’s voice, “a key component of their personal identity and public persona.” [para. 18] Furthermore, it showed concern over how celebrities, especially performers like Singh, are vulnerable to unauthorized generative AI content created by some of the defendants. While freedom of speech and expression “allows critique and commentary”, the Court agreed with Singh’s submission that this right “does not grant the license to exploit a celebrity’s persona for commercial gain.” [para. 21]

Following this logic, the Court concluded that the “advertisement, promotion and sale of merchandise” featuring Singh’s personality traits by defendants 11-23, without his permission, violated the plaintiff’s personality rights and right to publicity. [para. 20]

Consequently, the Court considered there was a strong prima facie case for granting an ad-interim injunction, as the balance of convenience favored Singh, who would face “irreparable injury” without it. The Court directed defendants 26, 27, and 30 to “lock/suspend the domain names arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in” and prevent their transfer until the next hearing. [para. 26] Instead of taking down entire videos, the Court directed defendants 1, 2, and 7 to edit/delete all references to Singh’s personality traits. The Court ordered defendants 33-36 to disclose the particulars of defendants 11-23. It directed defendants 26-31 to disclose the particulars of registrants of domain names, including arijitsingh.com and arijitsingh.in.

---