Delhi High Court spots clear violation of Pawan Kalyan’s personality rights |


Delhi High Court spots clear violation of Pawan Kalyan's personality rights
Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan won Delhi HC protection for his personality rights against Flipkart, Amazon, Meesho, Google, Meta, and others misusing his image, voice for sales and AI. Court bans unauthorized use; next hearings Feb 9 & May 12, 2026. Affected parties can seek relief.

Deputy Chief Minister K. Pawan Kalyan filed a petition in the Delhi High Court to protect his personality rights. The court recently stated that, per established laws and the evidence provided, his celebrity status gives him clear ownership over his personal image and features. Any use of these without permission violates those rights, states the report.

List of defendants

Among the defendants are Flipkart Internet Pvt. Ltd., Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd., Meesho Ltd., Google LLC, Meta Platforms Inc., and several unnamed parties or individuals said to be unlawfully and improperly exploiting Mr. Kalyan‘s personality, publicity, privacy rights, and related proprietary elements.

‘Telugu Is Mother, But Hindi Is … :’ Andhra Deputy CM Pawan Kalyan’s Big Pitch amid Language Row

Details of misuse

As reported in The Hindu, according to the judge’s interim order, a few defendants profit by using Mr. Kalyan’s name, face, voice, and image to sell items, either themselves or on shopping apps. The others build his personal features into AI on their sites for business or sell stuff without asking him first.

Next hearing dates

The court has scheduled the case for hearing before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on February 9 and before itself on May 12, 2026. The plaintiff must submit any extra documents by January 22, following the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

Relief for affected parties

The judge permits websites or parties harmed by this order, who aren’t primary violators, to petition the court. They need to pledge against spreading unlawful content that harms the plaintiff’s personality rights. The court may then adjust the injunction according to the case details.Disclaimer: The information in this report is based on a legal hearing as reported by a third-party source. The details provided represent allegations made by the parties involved and are not proven facts. The case is ongoing, and a final verdict has not been reached. The publication does not claim that the allegations are true.



Source link

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *