File Copyright Online - File mutual Divorce in Delhi - Online Legal Advice - Lawyers in India

Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v/s Google L.L.C

The case of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited v. Google L.L.C. & Ors. involves a lawsuit filed by Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited (the plaintiff) against Google L.L.C. and others (the defendants) seeking a permanent injunction for defamation, disparagement of the plaintiff's products, and infringement of copyright in the packaging of their products. The plaintiff, a part of the Dharampal Satyapal Group, is a well-established conglomerate in various sectors, including food and beverages. The plaintiff's trademark "CATCH" has been in continuous use since 1987 for food and beverage products, including spices and seasoning.

The plaintiff's grievance arises from three videos posted on YouTube in July 2020. These videos, uploaded by the defendants, falsely claim that Indian spices, including the plaintiff's products, contain cow urine and cow dung. The videos defame and disparage the plaintiff's products, causing reputational harm. The plaintiff alleges defamation, disparagement, and infringement of their trademark and copyright.

Court: High Court of Delhi
Case Number: CS(COMM) 322/2020
Date of Decision: April 10, 2023

Procedural History:
The plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction. Initially, summons were issued to YouTube LLC and Google LLC (now Defendant No. 1) as the defendants. Later, Defendants No. 2 and 3 were impleaded as YouTube channels "TVR" and "Views NNews," respectively. The defendants failed to appear despite service, and an ex-parte injunction was granted in favor of the plaintiff on August 14, 2020. The plaintiff now seeks a summary judgment against the defendants.

Issues Presented:
The court addressed the following legal issues:
  • Whether the defendants' actions amounted to defamation and disparagement of the plaintiff's products
  • Whether the defendants infringed the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.
  • Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction against the defendants.
Rules of Law:
The court relied on the following legal principles:
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XIII-A, Order VIII Rule 10, Section 151)
  • Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021 (Rule 4(4))
  • Commercial Courts, Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of the High Court Act, 2015
  • Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022

Analysis and Reasoning:
The court found that the impugned videos contained defamatory remarks against the plaintiff's products without any basis. The plaintiff provided evidence of certifications, reports from regulatory bodies, and independent food analysis, disproving the defendants' claims. The court determined that the defendants intentionally defamed and disparaged the plaintiff's products by disseminating false information. The court also concluded that the defendants infringed the plaintiff's trademark and copyright.

Holding and Decision:
The court granted a summary judgment in favor of the plaintiff. It made the interim injunction granted on August 14, 2020, permanent. The court directed Defendant No. 1 (Google LLC) to take appropriate action to block or take down the impugned videos if they resurface on the YouTube platform. The court also awarded costs to the plaintiff, to be borne by Defendants No. 2 and 3 jointly and severally.

Implications and Significance:
The court's decision reinforces the protection of intellectual property rights and the rights of individuals and businesses to be free from defamatory and disparaging statements. It clarifies that spreading false information about products can lead to defamation claims. The decision emphasizes the responsibility of intermediaries, such as YouTube and Google, to take action against infringing content and false claims made on their platforms.

The High Court of Delhi granted a permanent injunction in favor of Dharampal Satyapal Sons Private Limited against Google LLC and others. The court found that the defendants defamed, disparaged, and infringed the plaintiff's trademark and copyright. The decision reinforces the protection of intellectual property rights and imposes obligations on intermediaries to take action against infringing content.

Law Article in India

Ask A Lawyers

You May Like

Legal Question & Answers

Lawyers in India - Search By City

Copyright Filing
Online Copyright Registration


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi


How To File For Mutual Divorce In Delhi Mutual Consent Divorce is the Simplest Way to Obtain a D...

Increased Age For Girls Marriage


It is hoped that the Prohibition of Child Marriage (Amendment) Bill, 2021, which intends to inc...

Facade of Social Media


One may very easily get absorbed in the lives of others as one scrolls through a Facebook news ...

Section 482 CrPc - Quashing Of FIR: Guid...


The Inherent power under Section 482 in The Code Of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (37th Chapter of t...

The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) in India: A...


The Uniform Civil Code (UCC) is a concept that proposes the unification of personal laws across...

Role Of Artificial Intelligence In Legal...


Artificial intelligence (AI) is revolutionizing various sectors of the economy, and the legal i...

Lawyers Registration
Lawyers Membership - Get Clients Online

File caveat In Supreme Court Instantly