Delhi High Court protects personality rights of boAt’s Aman Gupta from ‘sexually explicit’ AI deepfakes
The Delhi High Court has ordered the social media and digital platforms to immediately delete or block infringing posts, videos, and profiles or any other material which is published on its platform and/or utilising its platforms.
The Delhi High Court was dealing with a plea of boAt co-founder Aman Gupta regarding his personality rights. (File Photo) Delhi High Court Aman Gupta news: The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim injuction in favour of Aman Gupta, co-founder of boAt lifestyle and a “Shark” on Shark Tank India, protecting his personality rights and registered trademark against widespread digital misappropriation.
Acting on a plea of Aman Gupta, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the defendants were exploiting his persona and slogans for “unlawful financial gains”, resulting in unjust enrichment.
“The material placed on record, as also the averments describing the personality traits and other attributes of the plaintiff, demonstrate that the plaintiff, in a short span of his career, has achieved certain milestones which have entrenched him in the business and industry circles in India, as also exposed him to certain significant international forums,” the Delhi High Court said in its May 7 order.
Justice Tushar Rao Gedela heard the matter on May 7.
The Delhi High Court order added that it goes without saying that the sexually explicit material/videos created by the defendants using the personality traits and attributes of the plaintiff, surely is an aspect that needs immediate and urgent consideration by the Court, whether the same are predicated on personality rights or not.
Case of personality rights of boAt flounder Aman Gupta
The plaintiff, Aman Gupta, sought protection for various facets of his persona, including his name, voice, image, and unique style of delivery, citing his substantial public reputation and a massive social media following of over 3 million on LinkedIn and 1.7 million on Instagram.
Senior advocate Diya Kapur, along with advocates Nakul Gandhi, Mujeeb, Siddhi Sahoo, Gurdeep Singh, Raghav Kumar, among others, appeared on behalf of Gupta before the Delhi High Court and submitted that he is a well-known Indian entrepreneur, chartered accountant, investor, public speaker, and a panel investor (commonly known as “Shark”) on the television program “Shark Tank India”. They stated that the petitioner is also a co-founder of boAt Lifestyle, operating under Imagine Marketing India Pvt Ltd.
The Delhi High Court was further informed that boAt was claimed to be India’s No 1 audio wearable brand as per the International Data Corporation. They claimed that through his entrepreneurial ventures, public appearances, business engagements, and media presence, he has established himself as a leading business personality and a youth icon.
They further argued that various third-party sellers and commercial entities are engaged in the unauthorised manufacture, advertisement, distribution, and sale of merchandise bearing his name, image, likeness, catchphrases, and other distinctive elements, including registered trademarks such as “Hum Bhi Bana Lenge” and “Down, but not out”.
It was stated that this unauthorised commercialisation results in unjust enrichment, dilution of the plaintiff’s exclusivity, and irreparable harm to reputation and financial interests.
Findings
- The awards and recognitions received by him in the last few years depict recognition of the quality of an astute business person within the industry.
- The nature of programmes/TV series, etc. also a pointer to the sharp industry acumen and analytical as well as financial soundness that the plaintiff exudes.
- The temperament to register the trademark slogans by the plaintiff demonstrates vigilance for the protection of his trademarks.
- The manner in which the defendants are exploiting his name, voice, persona, slogans, and registered trade marks of the plaintiff positively asserts the underlying fact of the plaintiff’s personality, which are exclusive to him and no one else.
- It is not to say that the issue of personality rights is unnecessary in such circumstances, as the only motive to create such sexually explicit videos, etc., could possibly be for unlawful financial gains and resulting in unjust enrichment.
Share
