Case: Rajat Sharma & Anr. v Tamara Doc & Ors., Delhi High Court
Judge: J. Amit Bansal
Date of Decision: 18.12.2024
The Delhi High Court’s recent ruling in Rajat Sharma & Anr. v. Tamara Doc & Ors. underscores the increasing concerns about the misuse of AI-generated content and its impact on reputation, intellectual property (IP) rights, and public safety. Justice Amit Bansal, known for his engagement in AI-related legal challenges, presided over this matter, offering interim relief to the plaintiffs against the misuse of their personality and IP rights.
Background
The Plaintiffs, Mr. Rajat Sharma, a well-known journalist and television anchor (renowned for his show AAP KI ADALAT), and Independent News Service Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the India TV channel, alleged that the Defendants had employed AI-generated content to post false endorsements of Mr. Sharma promoting dubious health remedies.
Facts of the Case
The Defendants through the use of AI technology developed videos that portrayed Mr. Sharma endorsing health products and remedies, such as diabetes and joint pains. These remedies were said to be fake.
The Defendants also infringed India TV’s copyrights and trademarks for content production. This included references to popular shows like ‘Aaj Ki Baat’, which is hosted by Mr. Sharma.
These videos deceived the public that Mr. Sharma was associated with these products and as a result caused him considerable damage in terms of reputation and trustworthiness.
The fake endorsements were social and they held political implications because they left the consumers with fake remedies whose safety was compromised.
Issues
The Court considered the following questions:
1. Whether the Defendants’ actions, in any way, were a violation of Mr. Sharma’s constitutional rights.
2. Whether the Defendants committed copyright and Trademark infringement against the Plaintiffs or not.
3. Whether the Defendants’ activities interfered with public interest by engaging consumers to purchase unsafe products.
Arguments by the Plaintiffs
The Plaintiffs pointed out that the defendant, Mr. Sharma, stands as a credible journalist who was generally trusted by the public. This is prima facie that Mr. Sharma’s persona and image were used without his consent in advertising the videos.
It was the Plaintiffs’ case that the Defendants used their copyrighted content and trademarks to give authenticity to the false endorsements. So not only the Plaintiffs’ brand was diluted but their reputation was adversely affected as well irreparably so.
According to the Plaintiffs, the advertisements were misleading and led to loss of confidence in the products affecting safety of the consumers. They noted that such fake endorsements could make consumers buy and use possibly harmful health remedies.
Defendants’ Response
This was an ex-parte proceedings as the Defendants were not present/ represented during the hearings. Claims remained uncontroverted at the ad-interim stage.
Court’s Observations
Justice Amit Bansal made the following key observations:
Court held that the Plaintiffs have made out a case of passing off in terms of violation of personality rights and property.
The Court noted that Mr. Sharma has been in the business and people trust his credibility as a journalist. This invasion of the person’s rights was capable of putting serious harm to both his private and public image.
The Court pointed out that if the Defendants continued with their conduct, the Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable losses apart from the general public’s trust and consumers.
Order
The Next Hearing is scheduled to be heard on 3rd April 2025.
Significance of the Order
This case highlights the judiciary’s active role in protecting individual and public interests in the digital age. It reinforces the importance of safeguarding:
Prior incidents of alleged AI invasion
It is interesting to note that not even a month has passed since J. Amit Bansal, presided over a similar kind of lawsuit filed by ANI against OpenAI for copyright infringement and for relaying reportedly false or concocted information that was attributed to ANI. It marked a significant moment in the ongoing global debate on the use of copyrighted content in AI training.
I. Limitations of AI Models in Addressing Defamation
These limitations suggest that human supervision and responsibility may need to be integrated into the use of AI outputs.
II. AI-Litigation Landscape (Globally)
These cases signal the growing need for global regulatory frameworks to address AI’s legal challenges.
III. AI Hallucination: A Growing Challenge
‘AI hallucination’ is a concept that refers to AI outputs that have no relation to real life because it misinterprets or mis-learns something. This phenomenon can occur due to shortcomings like:
Unrestricted use of AI writing can have legal ramifications such as defamation. Legal risks are particularly pronounced in professional contexts. The ‘Walters trial’ exemplifies this danger; a lawyer relied on fabricated case citations generated by AI, resulting in legal repercussions when these non-existent cases were challenged. This highlights the critical need for professionals to verify AI-generated content to avoid breaching ethical obligations and damaging their reputations. The case of Mata v. Avianca further illustrates these risks, as a lawyer faced sanctions for citing imaginary cases from ChatGPT.
OpenAI identifies this risk stating that human users should check all AI outputs, and disclaims that they are not solely liable for any outcome. During the Walters trial, OpenAI pointed to user agreements to highlight that users are responsible for the content they share.
Sign Up on mentblue here: 
And check out each of mentblue offerings here:
In My Preferred Transformation and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. M/s Faridabad Implements Pvt. Ltd., the Supreme Court delved into the interplay between the Limitation Act, 1963, and the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 (ACA). The case centered on whether the benefit of Section 4 of the Limitation Act—which extends deadlines when courts are closed—applies to the 30-day condonable period under Section 34(3) of the ACA. The appellants filed an applic...
On January 10, 2025, Congress leader Rahul Gandhi appeared virtually before a Pune court in connection with a defamation case filed by Satyaki Savarkar, the grandnephew of Vinayak Damodar Savarkar. The case pertains to alleged derogatory remarks made by Gandhi about the Hindutva ideologue during a speech in London in 2023.
On January 9, 2025, the Supreme Court of India dismissed review petitions challenging its October 2023 verdict, which declined to grant legal recognition to same-sex marriages. The five-judge bench, comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Surya Kant, B.V. Nagarathna, P.S. Narasimha, and Dipankar Datta, considered the review pleas in chambers and found no apparent error in the original judgment, concluding that no interference was warranted.