Actor Kartik Aaryan has approached the Bombay High Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of his personality across multiple online platforms, in a move that underscores growing concerns over digital misuse of celebrity identities. According to reports, the actor has filed an intellectual property (IP) suit seeking protection of his name, image, likeness, and other identifiable attributes, which he claims are being used without consent. The plea targets several online platforms as well as unidentified individuals, often referred to as “John Doe” parties, accused of exploiting his persona for commercial gain. In his petition, Kartik has sought a permanent injunction to restrain entities from using his identity in advertisements, merchandise, or digital content. He has also urged the court to direct platforms to take down such material and disclose details of those responsible. The actor’s legal team has argued that the misuse extends to emerging digital formats, including manipul...
Salman Khan moves NCDRC after Jaipur consumer court issues bailable warrants in Rajshree Elaichi ad case April 8, 2026 at 01:42PM
Actor Salman Khan has approached the National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (NCDRC), alleging that the Jaipur District Consumer Commission acted unfairly in proceedings related to a complaint over his endorsement of “Rajshree Elaichi.” The development comes after the district commission issued bailable warrants against Khan for allegedly failing to comply with its earlier direction to stop misleading advertisements connected to the product. Salman Khan claims orders were not served to him Appearing for the actor, Senior Advocate Ravi Prakash argued before the NCDRC that certified copies of the district commission’s orders were not provided to Khan, even though those same orders were already circulating in media reports. According to the plea, coercive steps were taken against the actor despite him not receiving official copies of the orders. The petition also stated that the interim order passed earlier in the case “was not in the knowledge of the petitioner and never served...