SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 36840

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J
Nannir Water Source LLP – Appellant
Versus
Mr Syed Imran Operator of the YouTube Channel Buyi – Respondent
O.A.Nos.1107 and 1108 of 2025 and A.Nos.5922 of 2025 and 1940 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy
For the Respondents: Mr.V.Regunathan for D1 and D2, Mr.G.Balasubramanian for M/s.Leela and Co for D3

Suit disposed recording defendant's undertaking to remove infringing video and not re-upload.

Headnote:The suit was filed under Sections 28, 29, 30(1), 134 and 135 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, seeking permanent injunction against trademark infringement involving the mark 'NANNIR' in Class 9, mandatory removal of a disparaging video, damages of Rs.50 lakhs, and accounts of profits. Essential facts include upload of an impugned video on 25.05.2025 by the first defendant on the third defendant's platform. The court recorded the removal of the video and the undertaking not to re-upload. The primary issue was enforcement of trademark rights against alleged infringement and disparagement via video content. The court's reasoning centered on the defendants' compliance through video removal and affidavit undertaking, as confirmed at the hearing on 20.04.2026, rendering further relief unnecessary. The civil suit is disposed of without costs, with connected applications closed.

Table of Content
1. suit concerns infringing video upload. (Para 1)
2. defendants affirm video removal and undertake non-reupload. (Para 2 , 3)
3. suit disposed recording undertaking without costs. (Para 4)

JUDGMENT

The suit pertains to a video uploaded by the first defendant on the platform of the third defendant. At the hearing on 20.04.2026, learned counsel for the first and second defendants submitted that the video was removed and that an undertaking not to upload similar video in the future would be filed.

2. Mr.Syed Imran, who is the first defendant, has affirmed the affidavit dated 20.04.2026. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of such affidavit are set out below:

‘2. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff herein filed a suit against me for the relief of permanent injunction to remove the impugned video dated 25.05.2025 published in the Channel “Buying Facts”. It is humbly submitted that the alleged was removed from the said Channel, it is also confirmed by the 3rd Defendant herein.

3. It is humbly submitted that I will undertake that I will not upload the alleged video dated 25.05.2025 again in my Channel.’

3. Because the video was removed and the undertaking not to upload such video was provided by the first defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits, on instructions, that the suit may be disposed of by recording said undertaking.

4. Accordingly, by recording the undertaking dated 20.04.2026, the civil suit is disposed of without any order as to costs. The undertaking affidavit dated 20.04.2026 shall form an integral part of the judgment.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top