YouTubers cannot harm business in the guise of reviewing products: Madras High Court

Observing that YouTubers cannot be allowed to damage the reputation, goodwill and business prospects of a company in the guise of reviewing its products, the Madras High Court has directed YouTube LLC to block a video review of a water energiser.

Justice N. Senthilkumar also granted an interim injunction restraining the YouTube channel ‘Buying Facts,’ supposedly run by Syed Imran and Syed Abbas of Chennai, from continuing to circulate the video review of the water energiser manufactured by Nannir Water Source LLP.

The injunction was granted pursuant to a civil suit filed by the Theni-based company for alleged infringement of its trademark, disparagement and defamation. The judge agreed with its counsel Ramesh Ganapathy that his client had made out a prima facie case for grant of interim relief.

“The first respondent’s act of publishing false statements would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade of the applicant and the same is also violative of the constitutional right to carry on any occupation, trade or business guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution,” the judge said.

He also wrote: “The first respondent’s defamatory and disparaging conduct would not only injure the applicant’s reputation and goodwill but would also adversely affect the applicant’s business prospects and commercial standing in the market and therefore, the same would have to be protected.”

Mr. Ganapathy brought it to the notice of the court that the plaintiff company was involved in the business of manufacturing water treatment/conditioning systems which address issues such as hard water, salinity and so on in domestic, industrial as well as agricutural sectors.

The counsel claimed that the products of the plaintiff company were eco-friendly, electricity-free and required minimal maintenance. The company had protected its intellectural property right by applying for trademark registration in 2022 and obtaining a certificate from the trademark registry in 2023.

However, referring to a video review of the product published on the YouTube channel ‘Buying Facts’ on May 25, the counsel said, the malicious and misleading statements made in the video had created unwarranted doubts in the minds of the people regarding the efficacy of the plaintiff’s product.

Stating that the customers would hesitate to purchase the product after watching the video, he said, it would, in turn, cause huge monetary loss to the plaintiff company. He said, the Bombay High Court had in a similar case granted an interim injunction in favour of Marico Limited with respect to Parachute coconut oil.