Case Note & Summary
The plaintiff, Marico Limited, a company manufacturing and selling various consumer products including hair oils and foods, filed a suit against the defendant, Abhijeet Bhansali, who runs a YouTube channel called 'Bearded Chokra'. The defendant published a video titled 'The TRUTH about Parachute Coconut Oil & Hair Oils in India' on 18 June 2019, in which he made several statements about the plaintiff's products, including that they contain harmful chemicals, that the plaintiff's coconut oil is not pure, and that the plaintiff's products are overpriced and misleading. The plaintiff alleged that these statements were false, malicious, and disparaging, and sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendant from publishing the video or similar content. The defendant argued that his statements were honest opinions, that he was not a competitor, and that the video was protected under freedom of speech. The court examined the video and the defendant's submissions, and found that several statements were false and made without due diligence. The court held that the defendant had acted recklessly and maliciously, and that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case for disparagement. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the video or similar disparaging content, but allowed the video to remain online with a disclaimer stating that the video is the defendant's opinion and that the plaintiff disputes the allegations. The court also directed the defendant to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff.
Headnote
A) Disparagement - False Statements - Malice - The court examined whether the defendant made false, malicious or reckless statements about the plaintiff's products in a YouTube video, and held that several statements were false and made without due diligence, amounting to disparagement (Paras 52-68). B) Injunction - Interim Relief - Balance of Convenience - The court considered the balance of convenience and held that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable harm if injunction is not granted, while the defendant's freedom of speech can be protected by allowing the video to remain with a disclaimer (Paras 79-83). C) Freedom of Speech - Article 19 - Commercial Speech - The court held that the defendant's right to free speech under Article 19 of the Constitution is not absolute and must be balanced against the plaintiff's right to reputation and business, especially when statements are false and malicious (Paras 76-79). D) Product Review - YouTube - Due Diligence - The court found that the defendant failed to exercise due diligence in verifying facts before publishing the video, and that the video contained several false statements (Paras 60-66).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the defendant's video review disparaged the plaintiff's products and whether an interim injunction should be granted pending trial.
Final Decision
The court allowed the Notice of Motion and granted an interim injunction restraining the defendant from publishing the impugned video or any similar disparaging content. However, the court permitted the defendant to keep the video online with a disclaimer stating that the video is the defendant's opinion and that the plaintiff disputes the allegations. The court also directed the defendant to pay costs of Rs. 5 lakhs to the plaintiff.
Law Points
- Disparagement
- Defamation
- Malice
- False Statements
- Injunction
- Freedom of Speech
- Product Review
- YouTube
- Commercial Speech
- Due Diligence
