The protection of personality right and publicity right have become increasingly vital in the digital age, particularly for public figures in the entertainment industry. The Bombay High Court was hearing  the Interim Application (L) No. 23560 of 2024 in Comm. IPR Suit (L) No 23443 of 2024. The case involves the celebrated Indian singer Arijit Singh as the plaintiff against Codible Ventures LLP and several other defendants including AI platforms, focusing on the unauthorized commercial exploitation of Singh's personality rights and publicity rights, including his name, voice, and likeness, for commercial purposes without his consent.

The case is primarily concerned with the violation of personality right and publicity rights, which are protected under various legal provisions, including Section 38-B of the Copyright Act, 1957. This section safeguards an individual's moral rights in their performances, ensuring that their persona is not exploited without authorization. 

The matter was presided over by Justice R.I. Chagla on July 26, 2024. During the proceedings, the plaintiff's counsel, Mr. Hiren Kamod, presented the specific instances of infringement which were 
1.AI-Generated Voice Replication: The use of AI models and tools to create artificial sound recordings mimicking Singh's voice. This not only involved creating new audio content but also utilizing Singh's vocal style and technique. 
2. False Association and Merchandise Sales: The promotion and sale of products such as posters, caricatures, T-shirts, and other items featuring Singh's likeness, without his permission. This also extended to platforms offering Graphic Interchange Format files (GIFs) related to Singh, falsely implying an endorsement or association with him. 
3. Infringing Domain Names: The use of domain names like ‘arijitsingh.com’ and 'arijitsingh.in,’ which could mislead the public into believing these were officially associated with the singer.

He argued that these actions not only violated his personality rights and publicity rights but also threatened to tarnish his reputation and dilute his brand. He emphasized that, as a well-known artist, he holds exclusive rights to commercially exploit his personality traits and that unauthorized use for commercial purposes constituted a severe violation. In addition to the above infringement there are several entities/person who are operating in a clandestine manner without a clear disclosure of their personal identities.

In the light of the grant of ex-parte order passed by the Hon’ble Court the Plantiff only pressed on specific reliefs, including:

• Prayer Clause (a): An injunction restraining the defendants from using his name, voice, image, and likeness for commercial purposes.
• Prayer Clause (d): An order directing the defendants to lock or suspend the domain names associated with Singh, preventing any unauthorized transfer to third parties.
• Prayer Clause (e): An order for the defendants to disclose their identities and the details of their unauthorized activities.
• Prayer Clause (f): An injunction against any further exploitation of Singh's personality rights.

The court relied on judgements submitted by Mr.Kamod to substantiate its decision, including:

1. Karan Johar v. Indian Pride Advisory Pvt. Ltd., IAST/17865/2024 Bombay HC - This case provides an insight pursuant the importance of protecting personality rights in the entertainment industry.

2. Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India, 2023 SCC Online Del 6914 -The court had acknowledged that elements of a celebrity's persona, such as name, voice, and likeness, are protectable under the law.

3. Applause Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Meta Platforms Inc. and Ors., IAST/17865/2024, Bombay HC Original - This case apposited that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff and against the Defendant in the instance of present situation.

Justice Chagla observed that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case for the grant of an ad-interim injunction. The judge noted that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff, as any delay in granting relief could result in irreparable harm that could not be compensated monetarily. The court also recognized the significance of protecting Singh's personality rights, given his stature in the music industry and the potential for unauthorized exploitation.

On account of the arguments advanced, the court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using Arijit Singh's name, voice, vocal style, photograph, image, likeness, signature, persona, and other attributes of his personality for any commercial or personal gain without his authorization. The court directed Defendants 26, 27, and 30 to lock or suspend the domain names 'arijitsingh.com' and 'arijitsingh.in' and prohibited the transfer of these domains to third parties until the next hearing. The court also ordered Defendant Nos. 1, 2, and 7 to remove all references to Singh's personality traits from their online content, including videos. Additionally the, Defendants 26  to 36, are directed to co-operate with the Plaintiff, it's  representatives and Advocates to provide necessary details.

The court also permitted compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) via email, acknowledging the challenges posed by the large number of defendants and the potential unavailability of contact details. This flexibility aimed to ensure effective implementation of the order while safeguarding the plaintiff's rights. The next hearing is scheduled for September 2, 2024.