Protecting Personality Rights and Trademarks in the Age of Deepfakes: Ankur Warikoo’s Landmark Win Before the Delhi High Court




Case Details

  • Case Title: Ankur Warikoo & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors.

  • Court: Delhi High Court

  • Case No.: CS(COMM) 514/2025

  • Date of Judgment: 26 May 2025

  • Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

 
With the exponential rise in AI-generated content, legal systems worldwide are confronting novel challenges:

  • Can someone's face and voice be protected under Indian law?

  • Does the misuse of these elements count as trademark infringement?

  • How should courts tackle deepfakes that mislead consumers?

At Vijaytha Legal Associates, we track landmark rulings that shape the future of intellectual property and personality rights in India. The 2025 decision in Ankur Warikoo & Anr. v. John Doe & Ors. is one such milestone.

Background of the Case

Plaintiff No. 1, Ankur Warikoo, is a renowned public figure and finance educator with over 15 million followers across Meta-owned platforms. Plaintiff No. 2, M/s Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd., owns the edtech brand ‘WebVeda by Ankur Warikoo’ and holds registered trademarks for Warikoo under Class 35 and 41.

Between August and September 2024, AI-generated deepfakes featuring Warikoo's face, voice, and likeness began circulating online, falsely linking him to fraudulent WhatsApp investment scams.

Despite repeated takedown requests, Meta Platforms failed to remove the content, prompting legal action.

Reliefs Sought

The plaintiffs sought:

  • A permanent injunction against unauthorised use of Warikoo’s persona

  • Interim relief under Order XXXIX CPC

  • A declaration of trademark infringement of the Warikoo mark

  • Enforcement directions against Meta for takedowns and disclosure

Key Legal Issues

  • Are personality and publicity rights recognised under Indian law?

  • Can AI-generated misuse of identity lead to trademark infringement?

  • Are social media platforms liable for inaction when impersonation is reported?

Court’s Finding

1. Recognition of Personality and Publicity Rights

The Court recognised Ankur Warikoo’s public persona as commercially valuable and ruled that unauthorised commercial use of his name, image, voice, or likeness was impermissible.

"The plaintiff’s persona forms an integral part of his business model. Its unauthorised commercial use is impermissible." — Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal

 2. Trademark Infringement Established

Use of the registered mark Warikoo in deepfake videos was found to cause consumer confusion, qualifying as prima facie infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. Platform Liability

Meta Platforms was criticised for inaction despite multiple notices, resulting in:

  • Court orders for the takedown of infringing URLs

  • Mandatory disclosure of the account details of offenders

  • Directions to act on all future complaints during the suit

Why This Judgment Matters – A Vijaytha Legal Associates Perspective

This case sets a critical precedent for Indian jurisprudence at the intersection of:

  • AI misuse and online fraud

  • Trademark law and personal branding

  • Platform accountability in the digital age

At Vijaytha Legal Associates, we view this ruling as a blueprint for protecting influencers, startups, and public figures from identity theft and brand dilution through emerging tech.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s ruling in Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe is a landmark affirmation of the legal remedies available against deepfakes and online impersonation. It reinforces that digital identity and personal branding are actionable assets, deserving legal protection through a combination of IP, personality, and platform liability frameworks.

Need Legal Help?

If you're a creator, entrepreneur, or public personality, and your brand, likeness, or identity has been misused online:

Contact Vijaytha Legal Associates for expert legal counsel on:

  • Trademark Enforcement

  • Personality Rights Protection

  • Deepfake Takedown Strategies

  • Platform Compliance

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Foreign Law Firms in India: A New Era for Legal Practice

 In a landmark move, the Bar Council of India (BCI) has amended its rules to permit foreign law firms and lawyers to practice non-litigious matters in India. This decision, announced in 2025, marks a significant shift in the country’s legal landscape, opening doors to global legal expertise while sparking debates about competition, regulation, and the future of Indian law firms. This blog explores the implications of this change, its scope, and what it means for the legal industry in India. Background: A Long-Standing Debate For decades, the entry of foreign law firms into India has been a contentious issue. The BCI, tasked with regulating legal practice, historically restricted foreign lawyers and firms from practicing in India, citing concerns over reciprocity, local expertise, and the protection of Indian lawyers’ livelihoods. Landmark cases like Lawyers Collective v. Bar Council of India (2009) upheld these restrictions, limiting foreign lawyers to “fly-in, fly-out” advisory r...
Read more

When English Prevails: Vijaytha Legal Associates on Constitutional Clarity in Discrepancies

  When English Prevails: Vijaytha Legal Associates on Constitutional Clarity in Discrepancies This article examines the recent W.P. No. 3673/2023 High Court ruling, which upheld the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations over Hindi versions, as per Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India. It explores a case where a teacher’s eligibility was disputed due to this linguistic discrepancy. Vijaytha Legal Associates offers insights into this critical legal principle and its implications for interpreting statutory texts. Justice: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjeev Narula Factual Background W.P. No. 3673/2023 addresses a fundamental principle of legal interpretation in India: the supremacy of the English version of Central regulations in the event of a discrepancy with their Hindi counterparts, as mandated by Article 348(1)(b)(iii) of the Constitution of India. The petitioner in this case had participated in the Middle School Teaching Eligibility Test, 2018, for th...
Read more