Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Sanjeev Narula, J.
Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Google L. L. C. & Ors. – Respondents
CS(COMM) 322 of 2020
Decided On : 10-04-2023
Defamation - Trademark Infringement - Copyright Infringement - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules, 2021
Fact of the Case:
The Plaintiff sought permanent injunction restraining defamation, disparagement of their products under the registered trademark 'CATCH' and infringement of copyright vested in packaging of said products. The impugned videos claimed that all Indian spices, including Plaintiff's CATCH brand, contain cow urine and cow dung, leading to defamation and disparagement of Plaintiff's products.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the impugned videos contained defamatory remarks against Plaintiff's products without any basis. The Court also found that Defendants No. 2 and 3 had maliciously uploaded the impugned videos containing derogatory and untrue remarks against Indian spices, particularly those sold under Plaintiff's CATCH brand, on the internet. The Court concluded that the Plaintiff's claims remained uncontroverted and decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction and awarding costs.
Issues: Defamation, disparagement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and compliance with the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules, 2021.
Ratio Decidendi: The impugned videos contained defamatory remarks against Plaintiff's products without any basis, leading to a deliberate attempt to defame and disparage Plaintiff's goods bearing the CATCH mark. The Court also emphasized the obligation casted on intermediaries, such as Defendant No. 1, under Rule 4(4) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules, 2021, to take immediate steps to block viewing within India if the impugned videos resurface.
Final Decision: The suit was decreed in favor of the Plaintiff, granting permanent injunction against Defendants No. 2 and 3 and awarding costs to the Plaintiff.
JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Narula, J. (Oral)
CS(COMM) 322/2020 and I.A. No. 6533/2023 (under Order XIII-A Rules 3 and 6(1)(a) r/w Order VIII Rule 10 r/w Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908)
1. The present lawsuit seeks permanent injunction restraining defamation, disparagement of Plaintiff's products manufactured and sold under their registered trademark "CATCH"/"[IMG]" [hereinafter, "CATCH mark"] and also infringement of copyright vested in packaging of said products.
PLAINTIFF'S CASE
2. The Plaintiff is a part of the Dharampal Satyapal Group, a conglomerate established in 1929, having a strong presence in food and beverages, hospitality, mouth fresheners, pan masala, tobacco, agro-forestry, dairy, rubber thread and infrastructure sectors. Plaintiff's trademark "CATCH" has been continuously and extensively in use since 1987 for food and beverages, including spices, seasoning, bottled natural spring water, tonic water and soda.
3. Plaintiff's products under the CATCH mark are used by large number of customers. Their spices have exquisite flavours and aromas and use the Low Temperature Grinding technology, which prevents evaporation of volatile and delicate oils from the spices. Plaintiff is committed to maintaining the highest standards of quality and hygiene and conduct routine quality checks of their products.
4. As detailed in paragraphs No. 27 and 28 of the plaint, Plaintiff has secured numerous trademark registrations for the CATCH mark as also packaging of certain products, in different classes in India as well as abroad. That apart, they also have copyright registrations for artistic works in packaging of their products such as "[IMG]", "[IMG]" and "[IMG]".
THE IMPUGNED VIDEOS
5. Plaintiff's grievance pertains to following three videos posted on the YouTube platform in July, 2020:
(a) Video titled "[IMG] Indian Spices Tainted with Cow Urine [IMG] Indian Food Spices Video", posted by a channel named TVR [Defendant No. 2], accessible on the link https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuQwzKILU9I [hereinafter, "impugned video 1"].
(b) Video titled "Cow urine and powder dung sprays in Indian spices and products [IMG], posted by a channel named TVR [Defendant No. 2] available at: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v+TEIvswdnvP4 [hereinafter, "impugned video 2"]
(c) Video titled "[IMG] Buyer beware, Indian Spices Tainted with Cow Urine & Cow Dung Popular Video", posted by a channel named "Views NNews" [Defendant No. 3], accessible at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v+SthmUYLGGa0 [hereinafter, "impugned video 3"].
6. The impugned videos claim that all Indian spices contain cow urine and cow dung and target major brands trading in spices, including the Plaintiff's CATCH brand. Impugned video 1 displays photographs of Plaintiff's products, with a voiceover running defamatory and disparaging statements qua said products. Defendant No. 2 has included various news reports, screenshots of news articles to generate a sense of authenticity amongst the viewers. Impugned video 2 is a translation of impugned video 1 in Urdu language.
7. Impugned video 3 claims to reveal facts about Indian spices, but falsely narrates that the US Food and Drug Administration ["FDA"] analysed spice samples and found them to contain cow urine, cow dung along with bird feathers, beetles, cow hair, rat hair and droppings. After displaying some other clips, the video displays images of Plaintiff's CATCH products with corresponding voiceover stating that "now, it is no longer a question of whether imported Indian processed foods and edibles have cow urine and cow dung, the question is what percentage of these products have cow urine and cow dung".
8. After gaining knowledge of the impugned videos, Plaintiff lodged multiple complaints with YouTube, which fact is well within the knowledge of Defendant No. 2.
PROCEEDINGS SO FAR
9. On the first date of hearing i.e., 14th August, 2020, summons were issued to YouTube LLC (originally Defendant No.1) and Google LLC (originally D
The deliberate attempt to defame and disparage Plaintiff's goods, trademark infringement, and copyright infringement were key legal principles established in the judgment.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the trial court must follow the mandate provided under Order VII Rule 10A(1) of the CPC when returning a plaint, and there must be a cause of ....
The court found the plaintiff established a prima facie case of copyright infringement, while defendants claimed fair use and truth defenses for defamation, necessitating a trial to assess merits.
Defamation claims must be substantiated with evidence; interim injunctions can be granted to restrain publication of statements deemed severely defamatory.
The main legal point established is that while the defense of justification requires evidence and should be determined at trial, the use of strong and offensive words in a defamatory context can impa....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
