JUDGMENT :

RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR, J.

1. This is a suit for protection of the intellectual property rights of the petitioner.

2. The petitioner is a leading manufacturer and distributor of Fast Moving Consumer Goods. The petitioner manufactures and markets products under its house mark Dabur. The petitioner also manufactures and sells fruit juices and ready to serve beverages under the brand name Real. The petitioner has spent huge sums in advertising products sold under the brand name Real and has also earned tremendous goodwill and reputation both in the domestic and the international market. The petitioner is also the registered proprietor of the trademark “REAL, REAL FRUIT POWER, FRUIT POWER, REAL ACTIVE” wordmark, logos and labels in class 32 which have continuously and uninterruptedly been used by the petitioner.

3. The respondent no. 1 is a social media influencer and claims to be a “YouTube educator” having a YouTube channel by the name of “Dhruv Rathee” at URL: https://www.youtube.com/@dhruvrathee/featured. The respondent no. 1 also claims to have a number of followers and is also active on Facebook, Twitter, Instagram. The respondent nos. 2 to 4 are social media platforms.

4. On 14 February, 2023 the defendant no. 1 had uploaded a video (the impugned video) on its you tube channel at URL: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y-k2eaDcyqo which has a duration of 21 minutes and 59 seconds. It is contended that the impugned video is specifically aimed at denigrating and disparaging packaged fruit products. A story board of the entire English transcript of the impugned video is also annexed to the pleadings.

5. The grievance of the petitioner is that the impugned video makes unfair comparisons between carbonated soft drinks and RTS fruit beverages. Moreover, there is an unfair comparison made between the fresh fruit juices and RTS fruits beverages. The overall impact of the impugned video is to generically disparage all packaged drinking fruit juices. It is also contended that consumption of packaged fruit juices leads to type 2 diabetes. The impugned video also conveys to the public that drinking packaged fruit juices leads to hair loss and is harmful if consumed. In short, the impugned video advises consumers not to consume packaged fruit juices and strongly recommends not to give packaged fruit juices to children.

6. It is also alleged that the impugned video makes a clear, direct and brazen reference to the products sold under the brand name “Real.” The petitioner also alleges that the respondent no. 1 has deliberately and mischievously partially blurred the registered mark/logo “Real Fruit Power” and directly targeted the petitioner’s product thereby tarnishing its reputation. The respondent no. 1 has also used slides in the impugned video from the petitioner’s promotional advertising videos which are easily relatable by the consumers at large to the product Real.

7. By a letter dated 15 February, 2023 the petitioner had complained to the respondent no. 2 with a request to remove the impugned video. By its reply dated 17 February, 2023, the respondent no. 2 refused to accede to the request of the petitioner. Subsequently, on 18 February, 2023 the respondent no. 1 had also posted the impugned video on his Facebook page.

8. The respondent no. 1 is not represented. The respondent nos.2 and 3 are represented and do not make any submissions insofar as the merits of the impugned video are concerned.

9. Although the right of the petitioner to seek recourse to law cannot be questioned, the interests of the consumer and the public must be safeguarded and respected. Dissemination of information through any medium or platform is a modern day reality. The only caution which a defendant ought to bear in mind is whether the publication falls within the four corners of law. In such circumstances, what has to be balanced is the right of the consumer to be made aware vis-a-vis the right of any manufacturer not to be ridiculed.

10. Article 19(1) (a) of t