I.A. 11962/2026 (Seeking discovery, inspection of defendant's documents)

1. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Order XI Rules 1, 3 and 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 ('CC Act') read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking discovery, production and inspection of the defendants' documents.

2. Issue Notice.

3. Let the reply to the application be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.

4. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 27.07.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

5. List before the Court on 08.10.2026.

I.A. 11963/2026 (Additional Documents)

6. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XI Rule 1(4) of the CPC as applicable to commercial suits under the CC Act seeking leave to place on record additional documents.

7. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 within thirty (30) days.

8. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11964/2026 (Exemption from filing clearer copies)

9. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC seeking exemption from filing clear copies of dim documents along with the captioned suit.

10. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true, typed, translated and clear copies of dim documents with proper margins be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.

11. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11965/2026 (Extension of time to file Court fees)

12. The present application has been filed by the plaintiff under Section 149 read with Section 151 of CPC, seeking extension of time to file the Court Fees.

13. Considering the submissions made in the present application, an extension of two weeks is granted to affix the requisite Court Fees.

14. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11966/2026 (Exemption from pre-institution mediation)

15. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.

16. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi: (2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution Mediation is granted.

17. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11967/2026 (Time to file certificate under 63(4) of BSA)

18. This is an application under Section 151 of the CPC, filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking time for filing the required certificate under Section 63(4)(c) of the Bharatiya Sakshiya Adhiniyam.

19. For the reasons stated therein, the same is allowed. The plaintiff is permitted to file the certificate as prayed for within four weeks with an advance copy to the learned counsel for the defendants.

20. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11968/2026 (Exemption)

21. This is an application under Section 80 read with Section 151 of CPC, filed on behalf of the plaintiff seeking exemption from issuing notice to defendant no.17/ the Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MEITY) and defendant no.18/Department of Telecommunication (DoT).

22. Exemption is allowed for the reason that urgent reliefs in the nature of injunction are sought against the contesting defendants.

23. The application stands disposed of.

I.A. 11961/2026 (U/o XXXIX Rules 1 and 2)

24. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

25. The plaintiff claims to be one of the prominent actors in Hindi cinema with an acting career of over 14 years. Plaintiff made his acting debut with 'Ishaqzaade' (2012), where his portrayal as a rebellious young man caught in an intense cross community romance is claimed to have been widely praised. The film is stated to have an immense commercial and critical success, earning the plaintiff several debut awards. For his performance in the said film, he received the 'Best Male Debut' award at the Zee Cine Awards and 'Superstar of Tomorrow-Male Award' at the Stardust Awards in 2013. He was also nominated at the prestigious Filmfare Awards.

26. On account of his stellar performance and success at the Box Office, plaintiff appeared in films like 'Aurangzeb' (2013), 'Gunday' (2014). In particular, the plaintiff's performance in the film '2 States' (2014), a romantic drama based on a popular novel, proved to be a resounding commercial blockbuster. Plaintiff claims that the said movie showcased his ability to portray relatable, modern characters navigating family expectations and relationships. The said film is claimed to have launched the plaintiff into stardom.

27. Plaintiff also appeared in an English drama film called 'Finding Fanny' (2014) alongwith renowned stars like Mr. Naseeruddin Shah and Ms. Deepika Padukone. The other films like 'Ki & Ka' (2016), 'Half Girlfriend' (2017), 'Mubarakan' (2017) proved to display the different and versatile attributes of the plaintiff. Later, the plaintiff appeared in 'Namaste England' (2018) and 'India's Most Wanted' (2019) which was a thriller inspired by real life intelligence operations. In 2019, the plaintiff starred in the film 'Panipat' which was a historical epic. Similarly, he starred in 'Bhoot Police' (2021), 'Ek Villain Returns' (2022), and 'Kuttey' (2023).

28. A defining moment of success for the plaintiff is stated to be on the release of the film 'Singham Again' (2024), where the plaintiff's role and performance as the main antagonist was widely praised and acclaimed. The film is stated to be a Box Office hit earning over Rs.350 Crores.

29. The plaintiff on account of his versatility and credible performance was conferred various Awards, which are enlisted hereunder :





30. Plaintiff claims that over the years, he has built a public image as a dynamic, hardworking, energetic and reliable person, and has been associated with numerous prominent brands across the fashion, lifestyle, and consumer sectors. Plaintiff has also endorsed various brands like Myntra, Flying Machine, Hero Cycles, Action shoes, Shivangi TMT Bars, Swift Deos, Tulsi Pipes, Home Pride Adhesives, Truefan, Indian Racing League, Thames Plywood, KWW Electricals, Call Me Chunky, Edumeta, etc.

31. Plaintiff also claims to be a philanthropist and has rendered services for social causes. Plaintiff has supported Oscar Foundation by organising sales to arrange for donation. Apart from that, plaintiff has also organised a fund raiser to support the COVID-19 medical efforts and has made donations to PM-Cares Fund and the Maharashtra Chief Minister's Relief Fund.

32. Plaintiff claims to have extensively featured on a wide range of platforms, both digital and print, including magazines, newspapers, entertainment portals, fan pages etc. The plaintiff has appeared in magazines such as Vogue, GQ, Femina and Filmfare amongst others. Plaintiff enjoys a massive following across social media platforms such as Instagram with 15.7 million followers, 'X' with 5.6 million followers, and 10 million followers on Facebook. These numbers demonstrate the plaintiff's massive popularity and fan-following.

33. Plaintiff states that his name 'Arjun Kapoor' by virtue of extensive promotion and publicity through all medium of communication has come to be recognised and identified only with the plaintiff, and is well-known by the relevant members of the trade and the general public. Thus, the plaintiff's name, image, and personality are claimed to be powerful tools for the purpose of marketing products and creating appeal therein. The consumers and the general public have immense trust in the goods and services endorsed by the plaintiff. The various aspects of the plaintiff's personality which are claimed to be protectable include the following:

          i. The plaintiff's name;

          ii. The plaintiff's voice;

          iii. The plaintiff's image/photograph/likeness;

          iv. The plaintiff's unique style of public performance, dialogue delivery, social-media persona or archived performance persona;

          v. The plaintiff's signature/autograph; etc.

34. The plaintiff has described each of the defendants in detail from para 43 to para 60 of the plaint. Plaintiff claims that the defendants have been impleaded together under Order I Rule 3 of the CPC as the right to relief accrues on the infringement of plaintiff's personality rights by the defendants, and the relief exists jointly and severally against such defendants.

35. The nature of infringement by the defendants have been broadly classified as under:

          i. Through impersonation:

          There have been instances of the plaintiff's name, images, video clips of his performances being used to offer bookings for his appearance/ performance for events in an unauthorized manner.

          ii. Through sale of products/merchandise:

          These involve cases where dishonest traders physically affix the plaintiff's name, images on products such as t-shirts, posters etc. with the aim to unlawfully show a nexus / affiliation / sponsorship / association with the plaintiff, so as to boost their illegal profits.

          iii. By use of Technology:

          Majority of the defendants and unidentified parties that are using technology such as Artificial Intelligence to create false and misleading deepfake images / videos of the plaintiff, sometime with other celebrities, and also in some instances providing incorrect information.

          iv. Through utilization of the name of the plaintiff to host various pornographic content:

          The plaintiff's name and image/visuals has been found to be utilized by various parties to host pornographic stories and videos on their websites. The utilization of the name of the plaintiff to host such obscene videos, the plaintiff's reputation, integrity and dignity is prejudicial to his goodwill and reputation and subject the plaintiff to humiliation for the sake of cheap humor, or by portraying the individual in an obscene setting.

36. That apart, the individual infringement by the defendants has been detailed in paras 70 with screenshots to para 88 of the plaint. Some of the acts of infringement by the defendants captured in the screenshots by the plaintiff, and a short summary of misuse of the plaintiff's personality and name are as follows:







37. Apart from the above, the plaintiff also states that there would be innumerable individuals and entities who may be indulging in similar activities, which may not be easily ascertainable or captured by the plaintiff have been bunched together as Ashok Kumar/John Does.

38. From para 98 onwards of the plaint, the plaintiff has described in detail the notices sent to various defendants for the purposes of taking down and/or stopping the infringing activities till para 101 of the plaint. Plaintiff also alleges that various defendants by their infringing activities including AI generated videos etc., are making unlawful financial gains and are unjustly enriching themselves. So much so that the AI generated videos are sexually explicit and abhorrent depiction of the plaintiff.

39. In para 108 of the plaint, the plaintiff has detailed the manner in which individuals earn revenue on the videos uploaded on the YouTube channel. Plaintiff states that the higher viewership generates higher revenue from YouTube as advertisers would invest greater money for their ads to be displayed in such videos. Thus, becoming a cascading and ever growing aspect.

40. Predicated thereon, the plaintiff seeks ex-parte ad-interim injunction against the defendants.

41. Having heard Mr. Pravin Anand, learned counsel for the plaintiff, examining the pleadings and documents on record, and after having heard learned counsel appearing for the Intermediaries and e-commerce platforms, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in order.

42. The tabulated depiction of various infringing activities alleged to be carried out by the defendants clearly demonstrate that these defendants are unauthorizedly misappropriating the personality and publicity rights exclusively vested with the plaintiff. It is also clear that such defendants are wilfully indulging in such infringing activities solely for the purposes of unlawful financial gains, and thereby unjustly enriching themselves. Clearly, there is no permission or license granted by the plaintiff to any of the defendants for exploitation of his personality/publicity rights.

43. The intermediaries who appeared before this Court stated that not all of the screenshots uploaded by innumerable individuals would constitute infringement of the personality/publicity rights of the plaintiff, and would border on parody, and lampooning, which is permissible in law. Though the intermediaries may be right in some of such screenshots, however, the overwhelming numbers of screenshots placed on record, and perused by this Court do appear to be, to this Court, a prima facie, infringement of the personality/publicity rights of the plaintiff.

44. Clearly, those defendants who have employed AI tools to create videos containing sexually explicit and abhorrent content are demonstrably violating the personality/publicity rights of the plaintiff. In fact, such videos are vulgar and clearly would dent the image and the personality rights of the plaintiff, not only beyond measure, but presumably, irreparably too. Such content cannot be permitted to continue to be available on any platforms in any manner whatsoever and are needed to be taken down forthwith.

45. The plaintiff has been able to demonstrate that over the years with his hardwork and dint, and also with his performances in the film world, has created an exclusive place for himself. On account of various endorsements, Box Office Hits, philanthropist activities, and immense popularity and visibility both on online and offline and print media, plaintiff's name, voice, image/likeness/photograph, unique persona and signature would constitute personality rights exclusively associated with the plaintiff. All these attributes individually or cumulatively are source identifiers of the plaintiff, and his personality/publicity rights. Any exploitation without permission or license of the plaintiff would demonstrably constitute infringement of plaintiff's personality/publicity rights.

46. Having regard thereto, it is evident that the plaintiff has been able to, prima facie, make out a strong case in his favour and against the defendants. The balance of convenience is clearly treated in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury and the dent to his personality which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms unless an ex- parte ad-interim injunction is passed against the defendants.

47. Accordingly, the following directions are passed:

          i. The defendant nos.1 to 11, 13 to 15, and 19 (John Does), their associates, servants, agents, affiliates, holding companies, assignees, substitutes, representatives, group entities, their subscribers, employees and/or persons claiming through them or under them are restrained from violating the plaintiff's personality/ publicity /moral rights by utilizing in any manner directly and/or indirectly, using or exploiting or misappropriating the plaintiff's (a) name 'Arjun Kapoor'; (b) image and likeness; and (c) any other attributes of his persona which are exclusively identifiable with him for any commercial and/or personal gain and/or otherwise by exploiting them in any manner without the plaintiff's consent and/or authorization, and/or using or exploiting or misappropriating the plaintiff's performances, through the use of any technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, Face Morphing, Superimposing and on any mediums and formats;

          ii. The defendant nos.1 to 11, 13 to 15, and 19 (John Does), their associates, servants, agents, affiliates, holding companies, assignees, substitutes, representatives, group entities, their subscribers, employees and/or persons claiming through them or under them are restrained from creating, sharing, disseminating, any product (including but not limited to T-shirts, sweatshirts, stickers, posters, mugs, mousepads, etc.); content (including audio-visual content, images, videos etc.) through the use of any technology including but not limited to Artificial Intelligence, Generative Artificial Intelligence, Machine Learning, Deepfakes, Face Morphing, Superimposing and on any mediums and formats, including but not limited to the physical medium, the virtual medium such as websites, Metaverse, social media etc.;

          iii. Defendant nos.3 to 16 are directed to take down all links/websites provided by the plaintiff in Document 1, 2 and 3 attached with the present application which unlawfully infringe the plaintiff's personality/publicity rights as also defendant no.12 to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information of the YouTube channels which are a part of 'Document-2' appended to the application, and defendant no.16 to disclose the Basic Subscriber Information of the Facebook/ Instagram accounts which are a part of 'Document-3' appended to the application.

48. If any further infringing websites, URLs, accounts, channels, or content are discovered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff is at liberty to communicate the details of such websites to defendant nos.12 and 16. Upon receiving such intimation from the plaintiff, defendant nos.12 and 16 are directed to block access to the said websites within 48 hours. In case the said defendants have any reservation, they will communicate the same to the plaintiff within 48 hours, so that the plaintiff can take appropriate remedial steps vis-a-vis the flagged content.

49. As and when the BSI details are furnished to the plaintiff, they would be at liberty to file an appropriate application to implead such mirror/redirect/alphanumeric variations of the social media handles / websites identified in the plaint, including those websites associated with the defendants within 48 hours of receipt of such information/details.

50. For any further infringing websites discovered by the plaintiff, the plaintiff shall be at liberty to approach the learned Joint Registrar (Judicial) by filing an appropriate application under Order I Rule 10 CPC for impleadment of such infringers.

51. For extension of the present ex-parte ad-interim injunction against such newly discovered infringers, the plaintiff shall also be at liberty to approach this Court in accordance with law.

52. If any website which is not primarily an infringing website is locked, suspended or blocked pursuant to the present order, it shall be at liberty to approach this Court seeking modification or clarification upon furnishing an undertaking that it does not intend to illegally disseminate content over which the plaintiff has exclusive rights.

53. Issue notice.

54. Notice is accepted by Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant no.12/Google LLC, Ms. Amee Rana, learned counsel for the defendant no.16/META, and Mr. Satya Ranjan Swaim, Central Government Standing Counsel for the defendant nos.17 and 18, however, state that there may not arise any occasion for these defendants to file reply to this application as they ordinarily would comply with directions which may be passed by this Court.

55. Let the notice be issued to the remaining defendants upon the plaintiff taking necessary steps, through all permissible modes.

56. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendants within four weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

57. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten days from date.

CS(COMM) 454/2026

58. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

59. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the defendants through all permissible modes.

60. Mr. Aditya Gupta, learned counsel for the defendant no.12, Ms. Amee Rana, learned counsel for the defendant no.16, and learned counsel for the defendant nos.17 and 18 accepts summons, however, state that there may not arise any occasion for these defendants to file written statements on merits and that they ordinarily would comply with directions which may be passed by this Court.

61. Let the summons be issued to the remaining defendants upon the plaintiff taking necessary steps through all permissible modes. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith the Written Statement, the defendants shall also file Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the Written Statement shall not be taken on record.

62. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30 days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of defendants be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be taken on record.

63. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.

64. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.

65. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 27.07.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

66. List before the Court on 08.10.2026.