Delhi High Court Rules on Deepfake Dilemma: When Identity Becomes an Illusion

Introduction:

In a significant ruling addressing the misuse of artificial intelligence and deepfake technologies, the Delhi High Court passed a John Doe injunction order protecting the personality and publicity rights of digital content creator and entrepreneur Ankur Warikoo. The case of Ankur Warikoo v. John Doe^[1] is an important case in the evolving legal framework around identity theft, misinformation, and AI-driven impersonation in the digital age. The Court recognized the urgent need to curb malicious use of a public figure’s identity for fraudulent gains and directed intermediary compliance for prompt takedown of infringing content.

Background:

Ankur Warikoo, widely known for his expertise in personal finance, motivation, and entrepreneurship, commands a vast following across multiple social media platforms. His personal brand has become intrinsically linked to his digital content and educational platform WebVeda run by Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd., a company he founded. The Plaintiffs approached the Delhi High Court after encountering manipulated videos widely shared across platforms like Instagram and Facebook, falsely depicting Warikoo endorsing high-return investment schemes via WhatsApp groups. These deceptive deepfakes not only misused his likeness but also exploited his credibility, misleading unsuspecting users into financial traps.

Facts of the Case:

The Plaintiffs, Mr. Ankur Warikoo and Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd. filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against unknown individuals (John Doe Defendants) who had circulated digitally manipulated videos and visuals using AI technology to imitate Warikoo’s image, voice, and persona. These fake videos projected him as promoting WhatsApp groups offering high-return stock investment tips. The impersonations were not only false but also positioned him as the face of fraudulent investment schemes, leading to significant reputational damage and potential financial loss to his followers.

Despite reporting multiple URLs through Meta’s Brand Rights Protection (BRP) tool and filing formal complaints with the Cyber Crime Cell and the platform’s Grievance Officer, several of the infringing posts remained online. The Plaintiffs presented evidence of wide circulation of these deepfakes since August–September 2024, and the continued failure of platform compliance even after repeated takedown requests and appeals.

Zaan WebVeda Pvt. Ltd., which owns registered trademarks for the brand "Warikoo" under Classes 35 and 41, also demonstrated the substantial financial harm it faced due to the impersonation. The company relies heavily on Warikoo’s identity and goodwill for its operations and had generated revenues exceeding ₹15 crore annually in the previous financial years. The impersonation not only diluted the trademark but also jeopardized public trust in the brand.

Court’s Reasoning and Findings:

The Delhi High Court acknowledged the novel threat posed by AI-generated deepfakes, especially in the context of public personalities whose identities carry significant commercial value. The Court observed that unauthorized exploitation of an individual’s name, voice, and likeness constitutes a clear infringement of personality rights and can lead to irreparable harm not just to the celebrity concerned but also to members of the public misled by the fabricated content.

The Court noted that Warikoo is widely known for promoting long-term, ethical financial planning, not quick, speculative investment tips. The deceptive similarity between his genuine content and the deepfakes enhanced the risk of public confusion and fraud. The impersonation, therefore, was not a mere violation of intellectual property but a sophisticated attempt to exploit public trust for illegal gain.

Observing a strong prima facie case and the balance of convenience in the Plaintiffs’ favour, the Court passed wide-ranging injunctive directions. It prohibited the John Doe Defendants from publishing, sharing, or otherwise using any aspect of Warikoo’s identity through AI, deepfakes, or any other means. Further, it restrained misuse of the “Warikoo” mark owned by the second Plaintiff and directed platforms such as Meta to take down identified infringing content within 36 hours.

Additionally, the platforms were ordered to disclose on affidavit the details such as IP addresses, emails, or contact information of the users responsible for posting such content. The Plaintiffs were also granted the liberty to report future instances of deepfake misuse, which the platforms were directed to take down within a similar 36-hour window. In case of any resistance or inaction, the Plaintiffs were permitted to seek further orders from the Court.

Conclusion:

The decision in this case, marks a pivotal moment in the legal evolution of personality and celebrity rights in India, particularly in the context of rapid technological disruption. The present case underscores the growing judicial recognition of an individual’s persona comprising name, likeness, image, voice, and overall identity as a protectable right, both under the broader umbrella of privacy and as a form of intellectual property with independent commercial value. This recognition becomes especially crucial for celebrities, influencers, and public figures whose reputations are inextricably linked to their livelihood, brand associations, and credibility among followers.

The Court’s order affirmatively anchors personality rights within a framework that goes beyond mere moral protection. It acknowledges the commodification of celebrity personas in the digital economy and treats their misuse whether through deepfakes, AI impersonations, or unauthorized endorsements as actionable under tort and IP jurisprudence. The Court’s invocation of the doctrine of publicity rights which has traditionally found deeper roots in U.S. law reflects a progressive approach toward safeguarding the economic and reputational interests of individuals in the public eye. This is particularly vital as technological advancements now allow any user, regardless of intent or technical expertise, to create highly realistic synthetic media that blurs the lines between reality and fabrication.

By restraining the Defendants from misusing the registered mark "Warikoo" and holding that such use infringed not just trademark rights but also personality rights, the Court drew a clear correlation between brand identity and individual identity. It treated the Plaintiff’s name not merely as a personal identifier but as a commercially valuable brand reinforcing the concept that trademarks can also reflect personal goodwill and reputation, particularly in industries driven by digital content and influence. This overlap of trademark protection and personality rights offers a more holistic legal shield against impersonation and misappropriation, particularly when the two are intrinsically linked as in the present case.

Moreover, the judgment sets important standards for intermediary accountability in the context of deep-fake regulation and online impersonation. By directing platforms like Meta to take down infringing content within a defined timeline and disclose information about offenders, the Court has placed enforceable obligations on intermediaries to act promptly and transparently paving the way for stronger regulatory enforcement in the digital domain.

Ultimately, the ruling sends a clear message: digital fame does not dilute legal protection. On the contrary, as personas become assets in a reputation economy, the law must evolve to protect those assets with the same vigour as it does physical or intellectual property. For India’s fast-growing creator economy, this judgment not only safeguards individual dignity but also reinforces a rights-based framework where authenticity, trust, and identity cannot be digitally hijacked without consequence.

^[1](CS(COMM) 514/2025