The petition seeks to restrain rogue websites, e-commerce portals, social media handles, and artificial intelligence platforms from unauthorized commercial exploitation of her name, voice, photograph, image, likeness, and digital persona without prior consent.
During the preliminary hearing before Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, the High Court took note of the sharp surge in celebrity personality rights litigation. Rather than issuing an immediate ex-parte injunction, the court directed Sanon’s legal counsel to furnish a comprehensive compilation of judicial precedents, academic research, and legal principles to define the precise contours of what constitutes protectable personality rights and clarify whether the court’s Intellectual Property Division (IPD) holds exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such claims.
The Scope of the Plea: Commercial Misuse & Generative AI Threats
Appearing on behalf of Sanon, renowned intellectual property litigator Pravin Anand argued that the proliferation of generative AI tools, deepfake technology, and unlicensed commercial branding poses an immediate threat to the actress's hard-earned brand equity:
Unauthorised Commercial Exploitation: The petition flags instances of third-party vendors utilizing Sanon’s name and morphed photographs to sell merchandise, endorse skincare products, and drive fraudulent traffic to commercial domains without licensing agreements.
Digital Impersonation & Deepfakes: The suit specifically targets unauthorized AI voice cloning, fabricated audio clips, and deepfake videos misrepresenting the actress, urging the court to issue dynamic injunctions directing the Department of Telecommunications (DoT) and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) to pull down offending URLs.
Delhi High Court Seeks Broader Jurisprudential Clarity
Rather than passing a routine ad-interim order, Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that personality rights cases are arriving before the High Court with escalating frequency, requiring a standardized legal doctrine:
“Can you give me some research paper? Please give a compilation. Give me judgments and your understanding regarding personality rights. What all will be included or falls within this ambit?”
The bench raised two critical foundational questions:
The Exact Contours: Which specific aspects of an individual’s identity qualify for statutory or common-law protection (drawing the line between commercial publicity rights, personal privacy, and legitimate public discourse/fair use)?
The Forum Question: Whether broad personality and publicity rights actions strictly fall within the statutory domain of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD), or if they straddle general civil jurisdiction governing defamation and privacy torts.
In response, Advocate Anand submitted that personality rights seamlessly encompass an individual’s name, image, signature, and voice, arguing that the IPD is fully empowered to hear the matter without jurisdictional conflict. The bench directed the submission of the research compilation and scheduled the next formal hearing for October 29, 2026.
Trade & Legal Take:
While celebrities have routinely secured interim injunctions to curb rogue counterfeit merchandising, Kriti Sanon’s petition arrives at a critical juncture where the Delhi High Court is seeking to formally systematize personality rights under Indian law. The upcoming October 29 hearing is set to be closely watched by legal scholars and talent management agencies alike, as the bench's findings could establish definitive boundaries between digital fair use, algorithmic expression, and the commercial protection of celebrity identity.
