DR. DEVI PRASAD SHETTY V. MEDICINE ME & ORS. 2024 SCC ONLINE DEL 8565

CASE NAME	Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me
CITATION	2024 SCC OnLine Del 8565
COURT	Delhi High Court
PETITIONER	Devi Prasad Shetty
RESPONDENTS	Medicine Me
DECIDED ON	28 November, 2024

INTRODUCTION

The case featured Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty v. Medicine Me & Ors. is important, it deals with significant concerns regarding the violation of personality rights and trademarks in the context of commerce Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty is a well-known cardiac surgeon and philanthropist who sought injunctions against the defendants for the unlawful and unauthorized use of his likeness, name, and trademarked material (which we will refer to collectively as his personality rights). This case offers a spotlight on the nuanced issues of protection for intellectual property and personal rights in the digital age – particularly in regard to emerging technologies in both social media and artificial intelligence. This case goes beyond a simple intellectual property dispute and highlights how digital misuse of identity can directly impact both reputation and public trust. It shows how courts are now called upon to deal with modern challenges like fake videos, manipulated content, and unauthorized branding in the age of social media and AI. The matter is especially important because it involves a figure whose name is closely linked to public welfare and healthcare credibility. By addressing such misuse, the court reinforces that personality rights are not just about personal dignity but also about protecting the public from deception. In this way, the case becomes a milestone in shaping how Indian law adapts to fast-changing digital realities.

FACTS

1. Parties Involved:
   • Plaintiffs: Named plaintiffs are Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty, well known cardiac surgeon and Chairman of Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd., a publicly limited company engaged in providing healthcare services, and who has worked extensively for affordable healthcare, and received an array of awards for his work.
   • Defendants: The defendants are Medicine Me, as well as various other parties, some as yet unidentified, who are operating social media platforms, and are accused of damaging Dr. Shetty’s likeness and Narayana Hrudayalaya’s trademarks.
2. Background of the Plaintiffs:
   • Dr. Devi Prasad Shetty: He had been recognized for his extraordinary work in healthcare and cardiac surgery. He founded Narayana Hrudayalaya in 2000, developing into a multi-speciality hospital with a network considered to offer low-cost healthcare. Dr. Shetty has a US patent for patient-care delivery system and various other significant positions, including the head of the Covid Task Force in Karnataka. 
   • Narayana Hrudayalaya Ltd.: Initially set up to provide specialized cardiac care, the hospital has now become the flagship hospital with enormous facilities like the world’s biggest pediatric cardiac ICU. The company operates using the trademarks “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA”, and has substantial goodwill in the healthcare field.
3. Dispute Background:

• The plaintiffs say the defendants misappropriated Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness, and videos on social media to advertise confusingly similar health products and services. The plaintiffs claim the defendants did not have authority to use Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness, or videos, which is a violation of Dr. Shetty’s personality rights and the registered trademarks of Narayana Hrudayalaya. 
• The defendants are also alleged to have made fake videos and created other content that misappropriated Dr. Shetty’s image for commercial purposes, causing confusion for the public, as to the affiliation of the plaintiffs and defendants, in a financial or other commercial manner.

4. Legal proceedings 

• The Plaintiffs filed a suit between Plaintiff No. 1, and Defendant No. 1, and I think some other Defendants after concerning pre-institution mediation, declaratory relief, permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the likeness of Dr. Shetty, trademark infringement, and misappropriating goodwill with consequential damages.
• The case was filed in the High Court of Delhi, after which various applications by the Plaintiffs were executed, including to seek exemption from mediation before the suit, and seeking permission to file fresh additional documents. 

5. Interim applications 

• There were various interim applications heard by the Court, including exemption to original documents filing, exemption from the suit from filing by way of pre-institution mediation, and filing electronic evidence respectively. 
• Various other interim applications received by the Court were allowed by the Court towards the Defendants, with the prospect of complying with procedural rules.

ISSUES

1. Personality Rights Violation: Did the defendants infringe on Dr. Shetty’s personality rights in relation to the defendants’ use of Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness, image, etc. without Dr. Shetty’s consent? 
2. Trademarks: Do the defendants infringe the registered trademarks “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA” by using names or marks that are likely to cause confusion by consumers?
3. Misappropriation of Goodwill: Have the defendants appropriated the plaintiffs’ trademarks and personality rights’ associated goodwill for commercial gain?
4. Pre-Institution Mediation: Are the plaintiffs exempt from this requirement of pre-institution mediation found in Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015?
5. Usage of Electronic Evidence: What are the laws regarding the admissibility of electronic evidence, and did the plaintiffs meet the requirements?

CONTENTIONS FROM BOTH SIDES

PLAINTIFFS’ CONTENTIONS

1. Established Right to Personality: The plaintiffs claim that Dr. Shetty has an established personality right because he is a well-known surgeon and public figure. Plaintiffs state his image and name have significant commercial value and should not be used without consent.
2. Unauthorized Use of Likeness: The plaintiffs claim that the defendant have used Dr. Shetty’s image and likeness without authorization in social media fake videos and advertisements making misrepresentations to the public and harming Dr. Shetty’s reputation. Unauthorized use of his likeness as infriedging on the goodwill of his name and the Narayana Hrudayalaya image.
3. Use of Trademarks: The plaintiffs state that the Defendants infringe the registered trademarks of “NARAYANA HEALTH” and “NARAYANA HRUDAYALAYA.” They also claim that the defendants are likely to confuse consumers of the trademarks by their continued use of the names and similar content and that their use is likely to dilute their goodwill.
4. Misleading the Public: The plaintiffs show that the Defendants’ actions are harmful to the public as the public may be misled in purchasing health products of services based on the appellant’s fraudulent use of Dr. Shetty’s likeness. Consequences of this can be adverse to public health and safety.
5. Irreparable Harm: The plaintiffs claim that unless they obtain injunction relief, they will lose reputation and goodwill, and they stress that balance of convenience is towards an injunction to restrain future misuse of Dr. Shetty’s image and the trademarks. 
6. Following Procedures: The plaintiffs assert they have followed the rules, including filing all interim applications and seeking all exemptions properly. They maintain that the court should grant their various relief requests based on the prima facie evidence. 

DEFENDANTS’ CONTENTIONS

1. Denial of Infringement: The defendants have denied infringing any personality rights or trademarks. The defendants contend that they did not intend to confuse consumers for public consumption in any way, and they did not act unlawfully.
2. Good Faith Use: In making their case for the defendants, they contended that their use of the name and likeness was in good faith because they did not know it could infringe whether it be copyright or trademark. They further claimed that their content fell within a legitimate purpose and it had no adverse effects on the plaintiffs.
3. No Likelihood of Confusion: The defendants claim that there is no likelihood of confusion among consumers as to the defendants’ services and their relationship to the plaintiffs. The defendants assert that their branding and messaging are different and do not represent that they are related to Dr. Shetty or Narayana Hrudayalaya.
4. Challenge to Personality Rights: The defendants have some basis to challenge the existence of Dr. Shetty’s personality rights and her privilege to enforce, babies have a lower expectation of privacy or control over their likeness; and there are instances where another party can use a likeness or photographic representation of someone for some purpose without their express permission or consent.
5. Procedural Objections: The defendants may also make procedural objections to the claims made by the plaintiffs, claiming that the plaintiffs have a complete failure to adhere to all of the required legal processes including the requirement for pre-institution mediation.
6. Possible counter claim for defamation: Depending on the direction of the defendant’s action, if they feel the plaintiffs have harmed their reputation, the then may consider a counterclaim based on defamation or misrepresentation.

JUDGMENT

1. Exemption from Filing Original Documents: The plaintiffs were exempt from having to file original documents, and the plaintiffs had been permitted to file legible and clear copies before the next hearing. This shows how flexible the court can be regarding procedural matters in the interests of upholding the ends of justice. 
2. Exemption from Pre-institution Mediation: The court approved an application for exemption from an obligation of pre-institution mediation, on the particular circumstances of this case and relevant authorities. Effectively, this allows the plaintiffs direct access to the courts with their claims. 
3. Order of leave to file further documents: The court permitted the plaintiffs to file further documents later in the case, unless filed under the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court Rules. This is for the purpose of enabling all appropriate evidence to be put forth by the plaintiffs.
4. Injunction against the Defendants: The court granted interim injunctions restraining the defendants of using and abusing Dr. Shetty’s name, likeness and the registered trademarks of Narayana Hrudayalaya. The court found the possibility of irreparable harm to the plaintiffs and the public interest in continuing to prevent misleading representations.
5. Obstruction of Impugned Content: The court directed as against certain parties, including social media channels, to block or take down content containing the plaintiffs’ rights is infringed. This is a measure in an attempt to protect intellectual property in the digital domain.
6. Notice to Defendants: The court issued notice to the defendants to respond to the plaintiffs’ claim and to disclose information they have about their activities. This was a key step that enabled the defendants to respond to the allegations.
7. Filings dead-lines: The court put a timeline in place which indicated a time in which the defendants had to file a written statement, and the plaintiffs’ deadline to file a replication. This worked well methodically as it progressed the case.

CONCLUSION

This case provides an important example of the intersection of personality rights, trademark law, and digital media in modern legal disputes, where the court’s decisions in the case indicate a strong emphasis on protecting individuals’ rights from unauthorized use of their likeness, especially in the context of famous people contributing to society.

This case illustrates the need for continuous awareness in protecting the rights of intellectual property rights and personality in a digital age and more connected world. As this case unfolds, it is very likely to establish interesting precedents related to the extent of personality rights, what it means to share in the digital world, and how existing trademarks are protected. 

The outcome of this case has implications not only for the plaintiffs, but also for the world of intellectual property rights in India… The court’s findings will be useful in future cases dealing with unauthorized representations of people’s likenesses and organizational trademarks. The broad implications of this course will reverberate in future cases dealing with issues like this, and will also demonstrate and emphasize that individuals in the digital age should look to protect both their personal identities and commercial identities.

‘This article has been written by Tamanna Jain from University Five Year Law College, University of Rajasthan.’