Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf alias Jackie Shroff v. The Peppy Store & Ors.

Jackie Shroff (legal name Jaikishan Kakubhai Saraf) is a Hindi film actor with more than 220 film appearances. He sued in the Delhi High Court in May 2024 to protect his name, image, likeness, voice, mannerisms and other attributes of his persona against misuse online.¹⁴ He relied on registrations of 'BHIDU', the Marathi slang for 'friend' that is strongly associated with him, as a trademark in Classes 25 and 41, and of 'Bhidu ka khopcha' in Class 41. He also pointed to his social media handles, @apnabhidu and @bindasbhidu.¹

The plaint relied on four sets of rights:¹

• personality and publicity rights;
• copyright, including performers' moral rights under Sections 38, 38A and 38B of the Copyright Act, 1957, namely the right to be credited for a performance and to restrain distortions that damage reputation;
• common-law protection against passing off, misappropriation and unfair competition; and
• infringement of his registered 'BHIDU' marks.

The defendants covered the main forms of persona exploitation online. They included sellers of wall art, posters, t-shirts and autographed photographs, and a YouTuber who compiled interview clips. Others posted distorted videos, including one overlaying profane audio, or ran GIF platforms. One defendant used generative-AI tools to create content exploiting his image, and another hosted an unlicensed AI chatbot of the actor. There were also wallpaper and ringtone apps, a restaurant named 'Bhidu Shawarma', and unknown persons posting pornographic links using his name. MeitY and DoT were joined as proforma defendants so that blocking orders could be implemented.¹

Justice Sanjeev Narula granted an ex parte ad interim injunction limited to the defendants against whom the plaintiff pressed for urgent relief. Counsel did not press for relief against the 'Bhidu Shawarma' restaurant at that stage, so the court expressed no view on the trademark claim.¹ Under paragraph 28 of the order, until the next hearing:¹

• the wall-art seller and the online merchandise store were held to their counsel's statements that the listings had been removed and would not be reinstated;
• two merchandise sellers were restrained from exploiting the name 'JACKIE SHROFF' and sobriquets including 'JACKIE' and 'JAGGU DADA', and his voice and image, for any commercial purpose without consent;
• two video creators were restrained from distorting the actor's videos in ways that tarnish his reputation and violate his moral rights;
• the AI platform was restrained from commercially using an unlicensed AI chatbot that uses attributes of the actor's persona without consent, 'including on formats and mediums like the Artificial Intelligence';
• a wallpaper provider was restrained from offering downloadable wallpapers using his name and image; and
• DoT and MeitY were directed to instruct telecom and internet service providers to block the URLs in Annexure A. These included pornographic pages using his name and listings on Flipkart and Amazon.

The court found a prima facie case and the balance of convenience in his favour. Without an injunction, it held, he would suffer irreparable harm 'not only financially but also with his right to live with dignity'.¹

Celebrity status and publicity rights. The court held that the facts pleaded established the plaintiff's celebrity status, which 'inherently grants' him rights over his personality and its attributes. It treated DM Entertainment v. Baby Gift House (2010) as 'highly relevant' because that case held that the right of publicity protects against unauthorised use of a person's name, image, voice and other distinctive attributes that brings unearned commercial gain to others. It also noted the authorities cited by counsel, including Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard, Titan Industries, Amitabh Bachchan v. Rajat Nagi and Anil Kapoor v. Simply Life India.¹

False endorsement. Selling posters, t-shirts and autographed photographs suggested to the public that the actor endorsed the products or was associated with the sellers, and was therefore prima facie infringing.¹

AI chatbot. The court described the AI defendant's service as an AI chatbot platform hosting 'an unlicensed chatbot of the Plaintiff', with which users could chat and which responded as the actor would. Prima facie this violated his personality rights.¹ Courts later relied on this finding when restraining AI voice and persona clones of other celebrities.

Tarnishment and moral rights. Videos that distorted the actor's face to make him appear to sing, or overlaid his clips with extremely profane audio, were held prima facie prejudicial to his reputation.¹

Free expression and the 'Thug Life' video. The court refused ex parte relief against the YouTuber. Having watched the video, which compiled interview clips with a photoshopped gold chain, sunglasses and a 'Thug Life' caption, the court looked at how that phrase is used in meme culture. It concluded that the video 'could arguably be viewed as a tribute' to the actor's assertive persona, introduced no falsehoods, and resembled a meme, spoof or parody. It noted that such content is a 'vital source of livelihood' for many young creators. Enjoining it could have far-reaching consequences and set a precedent that stifles freedom of expression. The court therefore balanced the creator's interests in artistic and economic expression against the plaintiff's personality, publicity and moral-integrity rights, and called for the YouTuber's response before deciding.¹

The order stands out among India's personality-rights orders for two reasons. First, it is among the first to restrain an AI persona chatbot. That extended Anil Kapoor's protection against deepfakes and AI imagery to conversational AI that imitates a living person. Second, unlike many omnibus John Doe orders, it engaged with free speech and parody. It refused to treat every unflattering or humorous use of a celebrity's image as infringement, and it recognised that creators have their own livelihoods at stake.¹⁶

Writing on SpicyIP, Aditya Bhargava contrasted the order's treatment of the YouTuber's livelihood with the approach in Anil Kapoor. He welcomed the court's refusal to over-extend celebrity rights against the meme video.⁶ Later commentary on India's 'celebrity scramble' for personality rights, from 'jhakaas' to 'Bhidu', likewise treated the Shroff order as a reference point in debates about the breadth of John Doe orders and their effect on satire.⁷

After the interim order, the suit followed the usual commercial-court path. Defendant 13, the operator of the AI chatbot platform, settled with the plaintiff on 18 November 2024. Several other defendants did not appear and were proceeded against ex parte, including the YouTuber, the restaurant and the GIF platforms.²

On 21 May 2026 Justice Jyoti Singh decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff against Defendants 1 to 12 and 14, in terms of the reliefs in paragraph 114(i) to (iv) of the plaint. The wall-art seller had agreed to remove infringing links and accept an injunction. The unidentified John Doe defendants were deleted at counsel's request. The final injunction protects the actor's personality rights, including his name, voice, image and associated attributes, against commercial exploitation in all formats and media, including artificial intelligence, the metaverse and future media. The order records no award of damages or costs. The suit was disposed of and the Registry directed to draw up the decree sheet.²

The case is decided. The final decree of 21 May 2026 ended the suit, and the separate settlement with the AI chatbot operator of 18 November 2024 resolved the claim against that defendant.² The 15 May 2024 order is still regularly cited in later personality-rights suits involving AI voice clones, chatbots and deepfakes in the Delhi and Bombay High Courts.