Case at a glance: The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained social media pages and channels from using cardiac surgeon Dr Devi Prasad Shetty's name, image and likeness, including through artificial intelligence, after they circulated videos falsely attributing drug claims to him. It also held the use of Narayana Health's ‘N-1’ mark to be infringement, and allowed the plaintiffs to report new URLs directly to Meta and Google.
Dr Devi Prasad Shetty, founding chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., and the company sued Facebook pages and YouTube channels that posted videos in 2024 putting false claims about diabetes and blood-pressure drugs in his mouth, and promoting an alternative hypertension treatment under the ‘N-1’ mark. An email showed a member of the public relying on the claims. Other defendants used his interview clips in Hindi and Bengali health videos.
Meta, Google, the Department of Telecommunications and MeitY were also parties. None of the content-posting defendants filed a written statement, and the Court proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
The Key Question Before the Court
Can the Court decree a permanent injunction against AI-generated and manipulated videos misusing a doctor's identity and a hospital's mark, where the defendants do not contest?
Personality Rights, Public Health and Trade Marks
Reading C.N. Ramappa Gowda, the Court said Order VIII Rule 10 is not penal, but no further proof is needed where the plaint raises no disputed facts; the plaint and documents were taken as admitted under the 2018 Original Side Rules. It found the content “by and large, self-speaking”: the videos “attribute to him statements which he never made” and pose a public-health risk. Following Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, such misuse of personality cannot be permitted.
Use of ‘N-1’ and ‘Narayana Health’ was infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. Because such content “can be generated and re-uploaded with little effort and under fresh identities”, the Court adopted a URL-reporting mechanism, as in Rajat Sharma v. Tamara Doc.
What the Court Actually Held
- Permanent injunction against the content-posting defendants, covering use without his express written authorisation, including through artificial intelligence.
- Earlier directions to platforms and government respondents on takedown, disclosure of operator details and blocking were made absolute.
- For new URLs, the plaintiffs may write to Meta and Google with an affidavit; the platforms act under their policies, and the plaintiffs may return to Court if they do not.
- Damages and costs were not pressed; the prayer for well-known mark declaration was not granted, as no Section 11(6) analysis was done.
Why This Judgment Matters
- It extends personality-rights protection to AI deepfakes in the medical context.
- It links misuse of identity to public-health harm.
- It provides a practical mechanism for dealing with re-uploads.
What Should Advocates Take Away From the Judgment?
For Rights Holders
- Document public reliance on fake content to show harm.
- Seek a URL-reporting mechanism for re-uploads.
For Platforms
- Expect affidavit-backed notices of new URLs under such decrees.
Key Takeaways
- AI misuse of identity is restrained.
- Fake medical claims pose public-health risk.
- N-1 mark use was infringement.
- New URLs can be reported to platforms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Yes. It covers use without express written authorisation, including through artificial intelligence.
No written statement was filed and the plaint raised no disputed facts, so the Court proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
No. That prayer was not granted, as no Section 11(6) analysis was done.
Conclusion
The decree shows courts treating medical deepfakes as both a personality-rights and a public-safety issue.
Practical takeaway: Professionals targeted by AI impersonation can seek a permanent injunction plus a URL-reporting mechanism to tackle re-uploads.