06/03/2025
INTA's Law & Practice
INDIA: Delhi High Court Extends Publicity and Personality Rights to Medical Field
Published: March 5, 2025
Shilpi Mehta Nanda
Shilpi Mehta Nanda
Zeal Attorneys
New Delhi, India
Famous and Well-Known Marks Committee
Verifier
Rohan Rohatgi
RSR Legal
Delhi, India
Geographical Indications Committee
The Delhi High Court has expanded the scope of publicity and personality rights from famous actors to people in the medical field.
In Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty (plaintiff no. 1) v. Medicine Me (defendants), the court restrained the defendants from using or exploiting the name, likeness, image, photos, videos, or any other aspects of the first plaintiff’s persona for any commercial or personal gain without the first plaintiff’s express written authorization and from infringing the registered trademarks of the second plaintiff, Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd.
Plaintiff no. 1, Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, is a renowned cardiac surgeon in India. He is also the chairman of plaintiff no. 2, Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd.
The plaintiffs sought an injunction restraining the defendants from infringing the personality and publicity rights of plaintiff no. 1 and restraining infringement of registered trademarks of plaintiff no. 2, namely NARAYANA HEALTH and NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA, .
Plaintiff no. 1 contended that owing to his significant contribution to the medical field, he has won various awards and accolades. He also founded a nursing college in 2000 in Kolkata and was appointed as the head of Karnataka’s COVID Task Force in the third wave of the pandemic.
Plaintiff no. 1 often appears on talk shows, gives interviews and guest lectures, and is featured in various newspapers. As a result, plaintiff no. 1 is a well-known personality not only in India but worldwide. Therefore, any misuse of his personality rights would have a significant impact on his influence on the public at large. Likewise, plaintiff no. 2 adopted various marks over the years and obtained common law and statutory rights in such marks.
The plaintiffs contended that defendants no. 1 and no. 2 were infringing the personality rights of plaintiff no. 1 by sharing fake and misleading content. They added that the name, images, videos, and voice of plaintiff no. 1 are liable to harm the general public by misleading them into purchasing health products promoted using plaintiff no. 1’s persona. Such adverse consequences resulting from these infringements would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiffs’ goodwill.
The Delhi High Court ordered in the plaintiffs’ favor on November 28, 2024, and also directed the telecom and Internet service providers to block or suspend the websites found to be violating the plaintiffs’ rights.
Send a message to learn more
