YouTuber Dhurv Rathi's has landed in legal trouble over his recent video on the health effects of packaged fruit juices, as Dabur has filed a suit claiming that he specifically disparaged their product, 'Real Juice'.
In the suit for protection of the intellectual property rights filed, the company has contended that the impugned video is specifically aimed at denigrating and disparaging packaged fruit products.
The grievance of the Company is that the impugned video makes unfair comparisons between carbonated soft drinks and RTS fruit beverages and moreover there is an unfair comparison made between the fresh fruit juices and RTS fruit beverages.
The overall impact of the impugned video is to generically disparage all packaged drinking fruit juices as it has been claimed 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 and advises consumers not to consume packaged fruit juices and strongly recommends not to give packaged fruit juices to children.
It has also been alleged that the impugned video makes a clear, direct, and brazen reference to the products sold under the brand name “Real”. It has been further averred that has deliberately and mischievously partially blurred the registered mark/logo “Real Fruit Power” and directly targeted the petitioner’s product thereby tarnishing its reputation.
It has been submitted that the defendant 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.
The Court at the outset noted that 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 that 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."
Article 19(1) (a) of the Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression and the principle of freedom of expression protects both information and ideas, the Court observed.
The obstruction to free speech, expression, creativity, and imagination is restricted only to the limited extent as enshrined in Article 19(2) of the Constitution, it added.
However, the Court went on to note that the impugned video shows an earlier advertisement that had been aired by the petitioner in respect of its product Real and also shows the petitioner’s product Real in a blurred manner and that it has been repeatedly targeted both overtly and covertly.
Any consumer would understand that the product shown in the impugned video is that of the petitioner’s product Real, the Court opined.
The Court thus observed that the defendant, in publishing and circulating the impugned video has also contravened the provisions of section 29 (9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the Copyright Act, 1957.
"The unauthorized use of the packaging, label, and logo of the product Real in the impugned video violates the trademark and copyright protection afforded to the petitioner and is impermissible."
The Court thus prima-facie observed that even though the underlying intent of the impugned video may not be objectionable, in making repeated direct and brazen references to the product Real of the petitioner, the Lakshamanrekha or the Rubicon has been crossed.
Noting that the petitioner’s product Real has been specifically targeted, denigrated, and discredited in the impugned video, the Court ordered that the defendant is permitted to air, circulate or upload the impugned video only after removing the offending portions in the impugned video which makes any reference to the petitioner’s product Real and also not to make any use of the trademark, copyright content, trade dress, packaging label and logo of the petitioner’s Real brand of products.
CASE TITLE: DABUR INDIA LIMITED vs DHRUV RATHEE AND ORS.
CASE DETAILS: IA NO: GA/1/2023 CS/41/2023
CORAM: Justice Ravi Kishan Kapur
Read Order @LatestLaws.com:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
