The Case of Dabur v. Dhruv Rathee – Spicyip

Picture from right here

[This post is authored by SpicyIP intern Srujan Sangai. Srujan is a second-year BA LLB student at the National Law School of India University, Bengaluru. He is interested in intellectual property law and technology law.]

Dhruv Rathee, a well-liked Youtuber discovered himself in a court docket battle towards Dabur India (Dabur India Restricted v. Dhruv Rathee) for criticizing its “Actual” packaged fruit juice in his (now eliminated) video ‘Is Fruit Juice Wholesome? | The Harsh Fact’. Dabur, who is not any stranger to product disparagement litigations, (see right here, right here and right here) approached the Calcutta Excessive Courtroom, alleging disparagement. Consequently, the court docket on March 15, 2023 directed Rathee to take away some allegedly disparaging elements of the video. The rationale for this order was that the video contravenes part 29(9) of the Emblems Act and is focused in direction of ‘Actual’. Nevertheless, in a subsequent order dated March 24, 2023  the Calcutta HC has ordered Youtube to take down the video fully. On this article, I’ll firstly, present the background and clarify the court docket’s order. Secondly, I’ll argue that the court docket’s reasoning fails to fulfill the assessments supplied for Part 29(9) and ignores Part 30 in entirety. Thirdly, I’ll have a look at the problems of disparagement, the grant of injunction and the duvet the potential for trademark bullying within the current case. Lastly, I’ll have a look at the case by the lens of free speech and the doable implications it might have.


Dabur alleged that by evaluating carbonated drinks with “able to serve” (RTS) fruit drinks, Rathee has made unfair comparisons between the 2 merchandise and has thus prompted a generic disparagement of all packaged ingesting fruit juices. Dabur additional contended that the video particularly targets its ‘Actual’ fruit juices by utilizing partially blurred ‘Actual’ brand and promotional promoting clips.

The Courtroom on the outset acknowledges that dissemination of data by any medium is a actuality in the present day, nonetheless, such dissemination ought to be authorized. Article 19(1)(a) ensures the liberty of speech and expression however is restricted by Article 19(2). Within the involved video, an commercial has been proven which was aired by ‘Actual’ and its product has been blurred within the video. Thus, the court docket reached the conclusion that any shopper would infer that the product proven within the video belongs to the petitioner.

The Courtroom additionally relied on part 29(9) of the Emblems Act, which talks about infringement of a mark by its spoken use or visible illustration, to conclude that the unsanctioned use of packaging, label and brand of the product Actual within the video violated the trademark and copyright safety.

The interpretation of the stated part was executed by the Delhi HC within the case of Hamdard Nationwide Basis v. Hussain Dalal  whereby it has stated that ““spoken phrases ought to be misstatement or inflicting confusion and deception which is the gist of the passing off motion or within the various, the stated spoken phrases ought to trigger infringement by means of diluting the distinctive character and reputation of the commerce mark which can both intention or unintentional. Due to this fact, whereas intent to defame or malign the status of the mark is a no consideration right here, what must be seen is that the alleged actions are misstatement, inflicting confusion and deception.

Within the current case, Rathee has expressed his opinion backed by info, referencing to the desk of “Actual” fruit juice’s components and deducting the product’s implication on well being. Although this case was handed by one other court docket and thus holds a mere persuasive worth, Calcutta Excessive Courtroom’s order clearly lacked due course of and the weather of equity and justice. Firstly, the court docket didn’t perform an inquiry as as to whether the statements and claims made within the video are appropriate or incorrect and failed to differentiate info from opinions. This enquiry is related since if the video accommodates opinions, then these can’t type the premise of both defamation or disparagement claims as has been highlighted by Prashant right here. Secondly, the court docket as per the necessities of the part didn’t particularly establish the distinctive character that was identifiable within the video which is remitted by the part. Thirdly, even when trademark might be violated by speech, the court docket has didn’t establish particular parts from the video during which Rathee has allegedly violated the trademark.

One other vital facet of the case that the court docket missed is to see the applicability of part 30(1) of the Trademark Act to the current case. The part states that sincere use of the mark with out taking unfair benefit or denigrating using the mark won’t be an infringement.  

Within the current case, the court docket has shunned invoking this part. Whereas it may be argued {that a} co-joint studying of part 29(9) and 30(1) might make a prima facie case towards Rathee for disparagement. Nevertheless, it’s also pertinent to notice that the impugned video doesn’t utter the phrases “Dabur” “Actual” and actually, by Dabur’s personal admission, exhibits its mark in a blurred method. Moreover, freedom of speech is a basic proper and inventive freedom being an integral a part of the correct, the courts should harmoniously stability the correct of the petitioners to guard their trademark and the correct of the respondent to specific his views. Thus, a higher leeway ought to be supplied in generic disparagement circumstances to inventive freedom though a prima facie case might be made. I discuss elucidate upon this proposition within the subsequent part.

Disparagement or Not?

Disparagement and on this case, product disparagement is intently associated to denigrating a product with a deceptive comment. Nevertheless, you will need to be aware that the jurisprudence round disparagement in India has largely revolved round points regarding ads. Thus, on this case, authorized growth associated to disparagement would have persuasive worth, nonetheless, even nonetheless a powerful case is made in favour of Rathee. Within the case of Hindustan Unilever Restricted v. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Advertising and marketing Federation, the Bombay HC said that the disparagement can be constituted if the next components are met:

  1. The knowledge supplied is fake
  2. The stated act is completed with malicious intent
  3. The decimation of such data results in particular harm to the plaintiff.

Even when assuming the primary requirement is met, inferring malicious intent can be a really far-fetched argument to make. Moreover, not too long ago in Zydus Wellness Merchandise Ltd. V. Dabur India Ltd., Dabur (paradoxically) had argued for inventive freedom in comparative ads and the court docket had held {that a} generic comparability or reference wouldn’t represent disparagement. The brink for the video in consideration ought to be even decrease since individuals don’t select to look at ads and isn’t a voluntary train. Nevertheless, in case of YouTube, individuals make a acutely aware alternative of watching the video after studying what the video is about.

Moreover, it appears that evidently the court docket might have conflated Part 29(9) with disparagement. As said above, the part is relevant whatever the intention of the respondent; nonetheless, in disparagement circumstances, intention is a necessary factor in figuring out legal responsibility. The court docket should make clear its place on whether or not ‘intention’ of the respondent is a fabric reality or not in figuring out legal responsibility in such circumstances.

In a Hurry to Grant Interim Injunctions?

It’s a well-settled precept that there are three important components that courts have to take a look at to grant interim injuction in mental property issues:

  1. Institution of Prima Facie case
  2. Stability of Comfort in whose favour
  3. Irreparable Damage prompted to the plaintiff

Within the quick matter, whereas the court docket has touched upon these necessities, it fails to offer causes as to why the Stability of Comfort lies in favour of the petitioners and the way does the video trigger irreparable harm to the plaintiffs. To grant an interim injunction, all of the three necessities must be met and established past cheap doubt which doesn’t appear to be the case right here. The video didn’t make any direct reference to the product itself and the commercial that was proven had been blurred. Even when the court docket granted an interim injunction, the order ought to have been restricted to removing of that commercial alone.

Authorized Technique?

It’s attention-grabbing to notice that for the reason that video was posted on-line, Dabur may have approached any HC however selected to strategy Calcutta HC as a result of the jurisprudence round trademark is totally different than Bombay HC or Delhi HC. Such firms have workplaces in each main a part of the nation and are ready to sue in any such half. Nevertheless, it turns into far more cumbersome for the comparatively smaller companies to interact in such litigations due to location as nicely.

One other attention-grabbing level to notice right here is that Dabur selected to pursue a trademark disparagement case as an alternative of a defamation case. It’s well-known that in defamation circumstances, reality is an exception from legal responsibility. Thus, the inquiry would have been whether or not Dhruv Rathee was talking the reality or not. Nevertheless, presently, the inquiry is totally totally different and issues interpretation of the Trademark Act. In a number of the different circumstances, firms have pursued a defamation case as nicely. (Prashant has coated the Bearded Chokra case right here)

Freedom of Speech

As has been argued in one of many earlier posts, Article 19(1)(a) encompasses the correct to data, which is related to the safety of customers’ proper to information and entry to data. As well as, the correct to freedom of speech and expression incorporates the correct to training and knowledge. Due to this fact, one may contend that such movies present customers with the correct to be taught, be told, and obtain needed data. Moreover, I’m involved in regards to the potential influence or the chilling impact that the current order can have on the inventive freedom of up-and-coming influencers who produce informative movies. The current judgement has ordered YouTube and Meta to take away the video in query from their respective platforms. This order is clearly a disproportionate measure for the reason that first order handed by the court docket required solely the contested parts to be faraway from the video. The order’s implementation might prohibit their means to share data and categorical their opinions on varied matters, which may stifle their development and growth as content material creators thereby difficult their proper to livelihood as enshrined below Article 21.

Moreover, this order’s limitations might lead to a scarcity of range within the content material accessible to viewers. If younger influencers are unable to share their distinctive views, the content material panorama might develop into homogenized, decreasing the alternatives for brand spanking new and progressive concepts to emerge. Thus, it’s important to make sure that such orders don’t stifle creativity and the free expression of concepts, notably amongst younger and upcoming influencers who’re simply starting to search out their voices within the digital area.


The judgement and subsequent orders handed by the court docket are problematic in nature as has been identified within the submit. This judgement can be a missed alternative to see whether or not generic disparagement or Part 29 is relevant in circumstances of non-advertisement movies, since a lot of the jurisprudence developed round disparagement has been within the context of ads. The place of regulation can be not clear as to when and in what conditions is Part 29(9) relevant. Lastly, the court docket should take cognizance of freedom of speech and expression and should present leeway to content material creators and others in such circumstances.

Añadir un comentario

Tu dirección de correo electrónico no será publicada. Los campos obligatorios están marcados con *