In the Dharam pal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd vs Google LLC and Ors.According to Rule 4(4) of the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code), Rules, 2021, which prescribes additional due diligence to be observed by social media intermediaries in case such content is uploaded or streamed online. the plaintiff filed a lawsuit. Plaintiff’s complaint relates to videos on YouTube that accuse all Indian spices of containing cow dung and urine and target well-known companies that trade in spices, including Plaintiff’s CATCH brand. A list of the ingredients in the spices in the plaintiff’s products that were mentioned in the contested videos independent analysis from a qualified laboratory that did not show the presence of cow dung, cow urine, or any other impurities, as claimed in the challenged videos. They have secured certificates from all relevant regulatory agencies. After learning about the contested videos, the plaintiff filed multiple complaints against YouTube.
Analysis of Court Order
Two YouTube channels were forbidden by Delhi High Court’s single bench Justice Sanjeev Narula from insulting and violating the copyright of conglomerate Dharampal Satyapal Sons Pvt Ltd, which owns goods sold under the brand name “Catch,” and asserting that all Indian spices contain cow dung and urine. The Court noted that the videos contained unreasonable defamatory remarks based on the plaintiff’s papers.
After determining that the videos contained unfounded defamatory statements, the Court further noted that the defendants had no basis in fact for making such false claims and spreading false information while posing as experts or disseminating the “truth” or “facts” about Indian spices. The Court further noted that the defendant’s failure to take action to remove the infringing content notwithstanding the plaintiff’s complaint, which was also confirmed by one of the defendants, demonstrated mala fide.
Hence, the Court decreed the suit against the defendants. It stipulated that if the videos surface again, the plaintiff could give Google the URLs so that it can take the necessary steps to ensure that they are removed.