TEAM CODE: TCC 34

1st CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT

COMPETITION 2025

BEFORE THE HON’BLE SUPREME COURT OF VEDASURYA

SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION. __________OF 2025

….IN THE MATTER BETWEEN….

XYZ NUTRITION ……...………PETITIONER

Versus
ARJUN SINGH ................RESPONDENT
 CONTENTS
LIST OF ABBREIVATION ....................................................................................................... 2
LIST OF STATUTES ................................................................................................................. 3
CASES CITATED .................................................................................................................. 3
STATUTES ............................................................................................................................. 3
DICTIONAIRES, ONLINE DATABASE AND WEBSITES ............................................... 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION .......................................................................................... 4
STATEMENT OF FACTS ......................................................................................................... 5
BROADCASTING OF THE IMPUNGED VIDEO .............................................................. 5
LEGAL ACTION INITIATED BY THE PLAINTIFF .......................................................... 5
PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA ....................................... 6
STATEMENT OF ISSUES ........................................................................................................ 7
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS ............................................................................................... 8
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED .................................................................................................. 12
PRAYER .................................................................................................................................. 27

Page 1 of 27
 LIST OF ABBREIVATION

SLP Special Leave Petition

FSSA Food Safety and Standards Authority
IT Information Technology
IPC Indian Penal Code
Art Article
Vs versus

Page 2 of 27
 LIST OF STATUTES

CASES CITATED
Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali. MANU/MH/0081/2020
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India. (2016) 7 SCC 221

ITC Ltd. v. Nestlé India Ltd. AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 1873

Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix India. 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1456
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (36) PTC 1 (SC
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films. (1978)1978 4 SCC 118
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India. AIR 2015 SC1523
Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Reckitt MANU/DE/0353/2014
Benckiser India Limited (31.01.2014 -
DELHC)
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace CS (os) 1407/2010
International.
Nestlé India Ltd. & Ors. v. Food Safety AIR 2016 (NOC) 225 (BOM.)
and Standards Authority of India & Ors.
Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya FAO (OS) No. 625 of 2009
Pvt. Ltd.

STATUTES
The Constitution of India, 1950.
The Commercial Court Act, 2015.
The Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Copyrights Act, 1957.
Indian Penal Code, 1860.

DICTIONAIRES, ONLINE DATABASE AND WEBSITES

SCC ONLINE
www.scconline.com
MANUPATRA www.manupatrafast.com
LEXIS NEXIS www.advance.lexis.com
LEGAL SERVICES INDIA www.legalservicesIndia.com
LAWYERS SERVICES INDIA www.lawyerservices.in
LAWDICTIONARY https://thelawdictionary.org/

Page 3 of 27
 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Petitioner respectfully submits that the present Special Leave Petition (SLP) is being filed
before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Indraprastha under Article 136 of the Constitution 1of
Indraprastha, which grants the Hon’ble Court the discretionary power to grant special leave to
appeal against any judgment, decree, determination, sentence, or order passed by any court or
tribunal within the territory of Indraprastha after exhausting all the remedies available .

The present suit was originally filed before the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha, as it was
maintainable under the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, given that the dispute
pertains to a commercial matter of specified value. The High Court exercised jurisdiction as
per Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act 20152, which provides for the adjudication of
commercial disputes in cases of original jurisdiction.

1
INDIA CONST. art. 136
2
Section 7 of Commercial Court Act, 2015

Page 4 of 27
 STATEMENT OF FACTS

1. XYZ Nutrition Private Limited (XYZ Nutrition) (hereinafter referred to as "the

Plaintiff") is a reputed and trusted manufacturer in Republic of Vedasurya, known for
its commitment to product quality and consumer trust.
2. XYZ Nutrition has built its goodwill in the market over the years as scientifically tested,
regulatory approved by clearing all food safety and quality standards set by FSSA of
Vedasurya (FSSV)

BROADCASTING OF THE IMPUNGED VIDEO

3. Arjun Singh (hereinafter referred to as "the Defendant") is a fitness professional and

well-known social media influencer who operates a YouTube channel with a
substantial following, where he provides commentary and reviews on various dairy
and fitness products.
4. The Defendant uploaded a video on YouTube falsely alleging that the “XYZ Ghee”
was adulterated with palm oil and milk fat which featured unverified and misleading
claims purportedly based on a third- party laboratory report that lacked accreditation.
5. The Defendant repeatedly compared similar products with “XYZ Ghee” where he
intentionally misused the registered trademark in the video that tarnished and diluted
the brand reputation. He alongside made statements which diminished the goodwill
of the firm.

LEGAL ACTION INITIATED BY THE PLAINTIFF

6. The Plaintiff filed a commercial suit against Arjun Singh alleging to be influenced by
the competitors at the High Court of Indraprastha under Section 7 of Commercial
Court Act3seeking an injunction to take down the video and compensation for
defamation and trademark disparagement.

3
Ibid 2

Page 5 of 27
 PROCEEDINGS IN THE HIGH COURT OF INDRAPRASTHA

7. Thereupon, FSSV suspended the manufacturing license due to the regulatory

violations despite the company stands that it was a knee- jerk reaction to public
outrage fuelled by the impugned video.
8. The High Court of Indraprastha held that this commercial suit is not maintainable
against the Defendant and denied the relief sought by XYZ nutrition

In light of this the petitioner has approached the Supreme Court of Indraprastha under Article
136 Constitution 4of Indraprastha. (SPL)

4
Ibid 1

Page 6 of 27
 STATEMENT OF ISSUES

I. Whether a commercial suit can be maintained against an individual social media

influencer for allegedly misleading product reviews, and whether such content
constitutes an exercise of free speech or amounts to trademark disparagement and
defamation.

II. Whether the defendant’s video review qualifies as an original work protected under
sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and whether the plaintiff has a lawful
right to seek its removal under copyright Infringement laws?

III. Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation under
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code(IPC) 1860, by publishing statements that harm
the reputation of XYZ Nutrition Private Limited?

IV. Whether the Defendant's (Arjun Singh) unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's (XYZ
Nutrition Private Limited) registered trademark in a satirical video constitutes
infringement under Section 29(8)c of the Trademarks Act, 1999, by causing dilution and
tarnishment of the Plaintiff’s (XYZ Limited) brand reputation?

V. Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction and

monetary damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and defamation
by Arjun Singh?

Page 7 of 27
 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

I. Whether a commercial suit can be maintained against an individual social media influencer
for allegedly misleading product reviews, and whether such content constitutes an exercise
of free speech or amounts to trademark disparagement and defamation.

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court of Indraprastha that the present
suit filed by XYZ Nutrition Private Limited has properly filed the present suit under
Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act 2015 5 because it disputes a
commercial issue stemming from false claims that have damaged the plaintiff’s
trademarks and reputation. The deceptive statements created by a fitness and social
media influencer which result in direct commercial harm qualifying as commercial
disputes. It is further submitted under the Indian Constitution in Article 19(1)(a)
6
establishes freedom of speech and expression rights but these protections become
limited because of reasonable restrictions in Article 19(2) 7which cover defamation and
trademark protection. The defendant has gone beyond honest analysis through his
manipulative declarations thus undermining the plaintiff's reputation and goodwill to
result in economic damage. Since the defendant’s conduct exceeds the scope of fair
criticism and falls within the restrictions it is respectfully submitted that his speech is
not protected Therefore, the Hon’ble Court shall restrain the defendant from publishing
or disseminating misleading statements, awards damages for the reputational and
financial harm suffered by the plaintiff directs the defendant to issue a public retraction.

II. Whether the defendant’s video review qualifies as an original work protected under sections
138 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 9 and whether the plaintiff has a lawful right to seek its
removal under copyright Infringement laws?

5
Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015
6
INDIA CONST. art.19(1)(a)
7
INDIA CONST. art.19(1)(b)
8
Section 13 of Copyright Act 1957
9
Section 14 of Copyright Act 1957

Page 8 of 27
 It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Court of Indraprastha that according to
Sections 1310 and 14 of the Copyright Act 1957 11the defendant’s video review fails to
meet original work criteria because it demonstrates minimal creativity while relying
heavily on the plaintiff’s brand elements to generate profit. Copyright infringement of
XYZ Ghee’s image and branding by unauthorized parties causes damage to XYZ
Nutrition Private Limited’s rights and deceives consumers while resulting in financial
losses. It is further submitted that when the defendant profits through misleading
content creation to grow audience numbers and boost interactions he commits copyright
infringement as well as brand disparagement without justifying it as fair criticism.
Internet platforms need to take down infringing content according to Section 79 of the
Information Technology (IT)Act,12 after receiving proper notification. The unlawful
commercial use of plaintiff goodwill by the defendant enables XYZ Nutrition to
petition the court for instant video removal along with injunctions against further spread
and financial reimbursements for reputation damage and financial losses.

III. Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation under Section
499 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC13)by publishing statements that harm the reputation of
XYZ Nutrition Private Limited?

It is humbly submitted that the video created by Arjun Singh qualifies as defamation
according to Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code14 because it presents false
information which damagingly affects the reputation of XYZ Nutrition Private Limited.
It is further submitted that defamation of corporations takes place when damaging false
statements harm both the business goodwill and its financial situation and public trust.
Singh presents statements without supporting evidence or independent assessment
which exceed fair business criticism because they serve commercial objectives instead
of providing information. Thus, XYZ Nutrition Private Limited can take legal action
against Singh's video because his video directly causes consumer distrust and financial

10
Supra 8
11
Supra 9
12
Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000
13
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860,
14
Ibid 13

Page 9 of 27
 losses in addition to damaging their reputation thus warranting compensation and an
order to stop the spread of defamation content.

IV. Whether the Defendant's (Arjun Singh) unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's (XYZ Nutrition
Private Limited) registered trademark in a satirical video constitutes infringement under
Section 29(8)c of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,15 by causing dilution and tarnishment of the
Plaintiff’s (XYZ Limited) brand reputation?

It is humbly submitted that the unlawful and deceptive utilization of XYZ Nutrition's
protected trademark by Arjun Singh within his satirical content qualifies as trademark
violation according to Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 16
because this
behaviour damages the brand's reputation. XZY Ghee suffers financial losses through
his false claims as well as corrupted brand reliability which constitutes actionable
disparagement. The weaknesses of Singh’s accusations rest upon his use of obtaining
an inaccurate third-party laboratory report that did not undergo testing at a government-
sanctioned laboratory and failed to notify XYZ Nutrition. It is further submitted that
the legal action based on the natural justice principles has amplified the Plaintiff’s
request to receive an injunction with damages and order the removal of deceptive
content to stop further reputation and financial losses.

V. Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction and monetary
damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and defamation by Arjun
Singh?

It is humbly submitted that XYZ Nutrition holds the right to both an injunction
alongside compensation because Arjun Singh's fraudulent video declares infringement
and defamatory content. The misleading and unauthorized statements throughout the
video have caused three main problems that warrant court intervention: reputation
damage, financial loss and consumer distrust. It is further submitted that sections 36

15
Section 29(8)c of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
16
Ibid 15

Page 10 of 27
 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act 1963 17 dictate that a permanent injunction becomes
mandatory to prevent additional damage.

17
Sections 36 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act 1963

Page 11 of 27
 ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

I. Whether a commercial suit can be maintained against an individual social media influencer
for allegedly misleading product reviews, and whether such content constitutes an exercise
of free speech or amounts to trademark disparagement and defamation.

1.1 Maintainability of the Suit:

1. The maintainability of a suit is a fundamental aspect of legal proceedings,
ensuring that the court hears only those disputes that meet certain legal criteria.
In the context of commercial suit under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial
Courts Act, 201518, provides that a “commercial dispute includes matters arising
out of intellectual property rights relating to registered and unregistered
trademarks, copyright, patent, design, domain names, geographical indications
and semiconductor integrated circuits”.
2. In case of Marico Limited Vs. Abhijeet Bhansali 19
the Bombay High Court
addressed the maintainability of a commercial suit as in the case a social media
influencer or a “Youtuber/ V-Blogger" who has his own channel titled "Bearded
Chokra" on the popular website www.youtube.com. He made a negative review
of a commercial product of the petitioner. The Court observed that it was the
remark was no a general review but a pre- planned attack with commercial
implications as the Court pointed out that” the defendant’s video is a targeted
attack directed against the Plaintiff’s product made with an attempt to attract
more viewers towards his video was held to be a commercial dispute” 20. XYZ
Nutrition Private Limited’s lawsuit may be deemed maintainable, aligning to the
precedent set in Marico Limited Vs. Abhijeet Bhansali21
3. As this statement demonstrates the Court's recognition that information
published by social media influencers, particularly about the negative product
evaluations or misleading phrases can have substantial economic consequences
and may be subject to legal review under commercial regulations.

18
Supra 5
19
Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali on 15 January, 2020
MANU/MH/0081/2020
Marico Limited vs. Abhijeet Bhansali (15.01.2020 - BOMHC) : MANU/MH/0081/2020
21
Ibid 19

Page 12 of 27
 4. Trademark disparagement under Black's Law Dictionary, disparagement is "A
false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of
another's property, product, or business.22
1.2 Freedom of Speech and Expression is not absolute:
5. The Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India 23
guarantees the fundamental
right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens as this right includes the
liberty to express opinions, disseminate information, engage in discussions, and
critique individuals and organizations. However, this right is not absolute and
subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(1)(b) 24
which includes
defamation and trademark protection.
6. In case of Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India,25 where the eminent politicians
were alleged of criminal defamation. The Supreme Court upheld the
constitutional validity of criminal defamation stating that “reputation is an
integral part of the right to life under Article 21of the Indian Constitution 26 and
differentiate the concept of reputation and defamation. Hence freedom of speech
and expression cannot be used as a weapon to assassinate an individual’s or an
entity’s reputation under the guise of free expression.” The court emphasised on
striking an appropriate balance between freedom of speech and expression and
human dignity. As the respondent speech cross the boundary of fair critique and
enters the domain of falsehood and caused reputational harm, thus this restriction
comes under the ambit of Article 19(2)27.
7. Further, the Madras High Court in ITC Ltd. v. Nestlé India Ltd 28emphasized that
“the reputation of a commercial entity is an asset that warrants protection under
both defamation laws and intellectual property laws.”
8. The notion that free expression does not protect defamatory, deceptive, or
harmful information is well-established. In case Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix
India,29, the Delhi High Court ruled that both satire and honest criticism are
protected. However, Article 19(2) 30 restricts communication that misleads,

22
TLD Staff, Disparagement, (Nov. 9, 2011), https://thelawdictionary.org/disparagement/.
23
Supra 6
24
Supra 7
25
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India, (2016) 7 SCC 221
26
INDIA CONST. art. 21
27
Ibid 6
28
ITC Ltd. v. Nestlé India Ltd AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 1873
29
Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix India, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 1456
30
Supra 7

Page 13 of 27
 maligns, or causes reputational injury under false pretences. This precedent is
relevant in the current instance, as Arjun Singh's, the defendant’s video contains
knowingly deceptive comments that have caused damage to the XYZ Nutrition’s
image, diminished its trust and faith in the market.
9. The defendant’s video is beyond the purview of Article 19(1)(a) 31and is clearly
within the limitations of Article 19(2).32 The deceitful and misleading traits of
his comments, along with the demonstrated reputational injury created, make his
speech accountable under defamation and trademark statutes. As, liberty of
speech does not include irresponsible and destructive assertions that undermine
the dignity and character of individuals or corporations. As his defence of
constitutional safeguards under Article 19(1)(a) 33is legally unsustainable.

II. Whether the defendant’s video review qualifies as an original work protected under sections
1334 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 35 1957, and whether the plaintiff has a lawful right to
seek its removal under copyright Infringement laws?

2.1. Defendant’s video review does not qualify for Copyright Protection under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957: 36
10. The Requirement of Originality Under Section 13 of the Copyright Act, 1957, it
provides that copyright exists in
• Original literary
• Dramatic, Musical, or creative works
• Cinematographic films
• Sound recording
However, in order to be protected by copyright, a creation has to be unique,
which means it must entail some degree of creativity or skill. In case Eastern
Book Company v. D.B. Modak (2008), 37 the Supreme Court ruled that
originality does not imply innovation.

31
Supra 6
32
Supra 7
33
Supra 6
34
Supra 10
35
Supra 11
36
Supra 10&11
37
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (36) PTC 1 (SC

Page 14 of 27
 The defendant's video fails to fulfil this threshold because:
• It does not develop unique material, but rather provides feedback
on an existing product.
• It generates financial value by discussing the Plaintiff's product
rather than creating separate, creative content.
11. It includes unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's brand name, trademark, and
product packaging, which is considered commercial exploitation rather than
artistic expression.
12. It was re-affirmed in case of Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc. 38
by the Delhi High Court ruling that unauthorized use of copyrighted content for
commercial purposes, even if in a modified form, does not qualify as a
protectable original work. The defendant's contested video incorporates the
plaintiff's trademarked brand and product identification, resulting in
commercial views and increased YouTube monetization.
13. This is not an original creative effort, but rather an unauthorized use of the
plaintiff's goodwill. The defendant enhanced audience engagement and
YouTube income by abusing the plaintiff's product name XYZ Ghee, favouring
indirect intellectual property and the fact that it does not belong to him. This is
to the court's conclusion that monetizing another's work without consent is an
infringement.

2.2. Section 14: Scope of Exclusive Rights Under Copyright Law:

14. According to section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957 39 grants the copyright
owner exclusive rights over:
• Reproduction of the work in any form
• Communication of the work to the public
• Distribution and adaptation
15. In reference to this section, Mr Arjun Singh’s video has breached XYZ
Nutrition Private Limited’s intellectual property rights (IPR) by utilizing their
trademark, XYZ Ghee ‘s image, and the brand name in his impugned video
without approval. As incorrect material is publicly disclosed under the pretext

38
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. MySpace Inc (2016)
39
Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957

Page 15 of 27
 of a review, tricking customers has resulted in commercial abuse of the
plaintiff's goodwill to reap financial benefits from YouTube monetization.
16. In R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978) 40, the Supreme Court highlighted that
simply reproducing a protected work without creative alteration is
infringement. In this situation, the defendant's video does not provide true
creative expression or critical analysis, but rather capitalizes on the plaintiff's
product identification for financial advantage, as previously noted.
17. The video's commercial motive, as seen by broadened monetization and
sponsorship options, weakens any claim to fair use. Furthermore, by
prominently displaying the plaintiff's distinctive packaging and branding
without permission, the defendant has stolen the Plaintiff's goodwill to attract
viewers and advertisers, resulting in consumer deception and economic loss.
Whereas a fair review, provides impartial analysis, the Defendant's content is
designed to sensationalize claims and mislead the audience, crossing the line of
copyright infringement and brand disparagement.
18. In Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet Bhansali (2019)41, the Bombay High Court ruled that
when a YouTuber monetizes deceptive content about a brand, it is actionable
commercial disparagement. In the current instance, the defendant's disputed
video has directly led to a rise in YouTube engagement and monetization, a
boost in subscriber growth spurred by sensationalized claims, and the prospect
of paid partnerships with competing brands profiting from the controversy.
The defendant has wrongfully benefitted from false content by intentionally
abusing the Plaintiff's brand recognition and goodwill for personal financial
advantage, which requires legal action under copyright infringement statutes
and unfair trade practices.

2.3. The Right to Removal Under Section 79 of the Information Technology Act,
2000: 42
19. According to Section 79 of the Information Technology Act, 2000provides those
online intermediaries, such as YouTube, are required to take down infringing
content upon receiving a legitimate complaint from the affected party. As this

40
R.G. Anand v. Delux Films (1978)1978 4 SCC 118
41
Supra 19
42
Supra 12

Page 16 of 27
 provision aims to protect the intellectual property rights of businesses and
individuals from unauthorized use.
20. In case of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India (2015), 43the Supreme Court of India
clarified that intermediaries must act on a takedown request only when notified
by the affected party or a court order. Thus, once the plaintiff informs YouTube
of the copyright infringement, the platform is legally obligated to remove the
impugned video.
21. In case Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak (2017)44, the Delhi High Court ruled
that social media platforms must remove misleading videos that use a company’s
branding without authorization, particularly when such content causes
commercial harm to the brand. The Court recognized that unauthorized use of a
brand’s trade identity, combined with false or misleading claims, constitutes an
actionable offense under intellectual property laws.
22. The defendant's illegal use of petitioner’s product branding, trade dress, and
identity in the disputed film is an obvious breach of intellectual property rights,
causing significant financial and reputational injury. The defendant's
dissemination of deceptive material has directly led to consumer distrust and
economic loss, necessitating prompt legal action. In light of this, the petitioner
is legally entitled to send a takedown notice to YouTube, requiring the removal
of the infringing video. Furthermore, petitioner has a genuine claim for
injunctive relief to prohibit future broadcast of the deceptive film, as well as
monetary damages for the significant loss done to its market standing.

III. Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation under Section
499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, by publishing statements that harm the reputation of
XYZ Nutrition Private Limited?

3.1. Accountability of Arjun Singh for posting statements that harm XYZ
Nutrition's reputation:
23. Under section 499 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC), defines defamation as
making any imputation concerning a person or entity with the intent to harm or

43
Shreya Singhal v. Union of India AIR 2015 SC1523,
44
Kent RO Systems Ltd. v. Amit Kotak AIR 2017

Page 17 of 27
 with the knowledge that it will harm their reputation. The second explanation of
Section 499 45extends the protection of firms from defamation by stating that any
comment that harms a company's reputation in the public view constitutes
corporate defamation.
24. In this specific instance, Arjun Singh's video makes untrue, misleading, and
unsupported claims regarding XYZ Nutrition's product, leading to customer
distrust, reputational injury, and financial loss for the Plaintiff. These comments
go beyond genuine customer criticism and constitute deceptive factual
representations targeted to dilute the company's representation. In consequence,
Singh's conduct is actionable defamation under Section 499 IPC, exposing him
to legal penalties.

3.2. The Difference Between Defamation and Fair Criticism: Factual Falsehood
vs. Opinion:
25. This is important to note the statute distinguishes between false representations
of fact and protected opinions. While honest commentary on public issues is
permissible, deceptive factual comments that hurt reputation are legally
punishable. The authorities generally consider defamation lawsuits using three
key factors:
25.1. Whether the statement is untrue or deceptive?
25.2. Whether the comment was meant to hurt the Plaintiff's
reputation?
25.3. Whether it comes under the fair remark or truth exemption?
26. In T.V. Today Network Ltd. v. M/s Cobrapost (2019),46 the Delhi High Court
declared that false or deliberately altered information that undermines an entity's
reputation constitutes defamation. Similarly, in the case of Dharamvir Singh v.
Vinod Dua (2021), the Supreme Court ruled that journalistic freedom does not
include lies that harm a company's reputation.
27. In this situation, Arjun Singh's video contains deceptive information regarding
XYZ Nutrition's product and lacks any confirmed laboratory results or
regulatory conclusions. His words are not subjective beliefs, but rather false

45
Supra 13
46
T.V. Today Network Ltd. v. M/s Cobrapost AIR 2019

Page 18 of 27
 factual representations, rendering them defamatory and vulnerable to legal
action.
28. Mr. Arjun Singh cannot claim or seek protection under the exception of Sectin
499 of IPC as his statements fail to meet the legal requirements for exemption.
As they are not true, though he claims lack factual accuracy and independent
verification, making them legally unsustainable. It is neither in public interest
nor informative to consumers and does not come under fair criticism as its
commercially motivated without having any objective of reviewing the dairy
product.
29. The ruling in Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet Bhansali (2019) 47is particularly relevant,
as the Bombay High Court emphasized that social media influencers must
ensure their content does not mislead consumers. In this case Singh’s video is
financially motivated and lacked factual basis, disqualifies him from claiming
any exceptions to defamation.

3.3. Establishing Corporate Defamation: Actual Harm to XYZ Nutrition

30. It is well established that corporate defamation occurs when false statements
cause financial and reputational harm to a business. In this case, Arjun Singh's
false film has harmed XYZ Nutrition's market public image, entitling the firm
to legal action.
• Financial Loss - The deceptive information has resulted in a drop in
income by undermining customer trust and generating market volatility.
• Reputational Damage - The video has had a detrimental impact on public
opinion, resulting in a loss of goodwill and brand credibility.
31. In Ashutosh Dubey v. Netflix (2020), the Delhi High Court reiterated that
corporate defamation can cause indirect injury to a brand's goodwill, making
XYZ Nutrition's claim legally tenable. Similarly, in Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v.
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (2017), the Court ruled
that deceptive publicity resulting in reputational loss is actionable.
32. Singh's video has indisputably affected XYZ Nutrition's financial interests and
public image, thus the business has the right to seek losses, restraining orders,

47
Supra 19

Page 19 of 27
 and the prompt removal of the defamatory information to avoid additional
injury.

IV. Whether the Defendant's (Arjun Singh) unauthorized use of the Plaintiff's (XYZ Nutrition
Private Limited) registered trademark in a satirical video constitutes infringement under
Section 29(8)c of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by causing dilution and tarnishment of the
Plaintiff’s (XYZ Limited) brand reputation?

4.1. Trademark Infringement Under Section 29(8)c of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 48
4.1.1. Misuse of XYZ Nutrition trademark
4.1.1.1. According to Section 29(8)c of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 it provides
that unauthorized use of a registered trademark in advertising, promotion,
or public communication is detrimental to its distinctive character or
reputation constitutes trademark infringement. 49
4.1.2. Trademark Dilution and Tarnishment:
4.1.2.1. Generally, trademark dilution occurs when an unknown individual uses
a trademark in a manner that diminishes its uniqueness and affects or
damages the goodwill of the trademark. In case of Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet
Bhansali50 as the Bombay High Court granted a temporary injunction against
a YouTuber for misleading and disparaging remarks against Parachute
Coconut Oil which was the petitioner’s product stating that such false claims
amount to trademark disparagement and dilution. In this case Arjun Singh's
video similarly spreads misleading information about XYZ Ghee, tarnishing
its reputation and leading to consumer distrust.
33. The Delhi High Court in ITC Ltd. v. Britannia Industries Ltd 51 held that
misrepresentation of a trademark in advertisements can cause brand dilution even
if indirect. This case precedent applied to the video in question misrepresents
XYZ Nutrition’s brand and falsely implies a defect in XYZ Ghee stating it is

48
Supra 15
50
Supra 19
51
Britannia and ITC in trade mark row: Packaging saga intensifies, SCC Times (Apr. 22, 2021),
https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/04/22/britannia-and-itc-in-trade-mark-row-packaging-saga-
intensifies/.

Page 20 of 27
 adulterated with palm oil and with milk fat of 82% by wt which constituted
trademark dilution and infringement.
4.2. Disparagement and Deceptive Representation of XYZ Nutrition’s Brand:
34. Unfounded or erroneous comments that negatively impact the credibility and the
image of XYZ Nutrition Limited are considered actionable disparagement. The
courts have widely accepted that even tangential misrepresentations can
amount in trademark dilution and unfair business practices.
35. In case of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt Benckiser (2014) 52the Court held
that” a misleading comparative advertising that harms a competitor’s goodwill
is unlawful especially when it denigrates or disparages the competitor's product
and can lead to a legal suit. “In this case the Court emphasised on following
certain principles to satisfy comparative disparagement which needs to be
established by the petitioner, it includes
• A misleading or untrue statement of fact about the product
• A part is deceiving or has potentially been deceived which is the
substantive part.
• The deception should or is likely to influence the consumer decision as
whether or purchase or not
• Moreover, the note of the intent of the expression, its manner and the
effect of the telecast. The manner offers the essence in determining
whether it results in disparagement.
36. The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting a company's
goodwill and reputation from the harm caused by misleading or disparaging
advertising. In adheres to this precedent of Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Reckitt
Benckiser (2014)53 the defendant, Mr Arjun Singh’s bogus remarks made in the
YouTube video in his channel erroneously symbolize the quality of XYZ Ghee
as inferior, misinforming consumers, undermining the manufacturer's existing
reputation, and having a significant impact on customer confidence and decision-
making processes. Singh's material not only deceives the product, XYZ
Ghee nevertheless creates undue reputational damage, impacting customer

52
MANU/DE/0353/2014

Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Reckitt Benckiser India Limited (31.01.2014 - DELHC) :
MANU/DE/0353/2014
53
Ibid 18

Page 21 of 27
 perception, causing financial losses, and diminishing XYZ Nutrition's
competitive edge in the market.
37. The Delhi High Court in case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International
54
recognized that fair criticism is protected under freedom of speech, however,
if such criticism causes unjustifiable harm to a brand’s reputation, it falls outside
the purview of lawful expression.

38. It is seen that in case of Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, Greenpeace
International had used Greenpace exploited the Tata logo in a satirical game to
highlight purported environmental issues about the company's development
project near a turtle nesting area. The Delhi High Court determined that such
commentary was within the scope of fair use since it was supported by factual
statements about environmental concerns and was in the public interest.
39. In contrast with the particular case of Greenpeace, Mr. Arjun Singh's critique is
factually incorrect and is based on an unconfirmed third-party lab report acquired
by providing a proxy email address, thereby making it deceptive.
40. The Delhi High Court in Greenpeace stressed that even legitimate criticism
should not mislead customers. Singh's capture goes beyond criticism to
aggressively distort the high standards of XYZ Ghee, so affecting customer
perception. The Greenpeace lawsuit protected speech because it was a reasonable
statement of concern about environmental sustainability. Singh's words, on the
other hand, do not serve the public interest by luring consumers and unfairly
harming the brand's reputation. Thus, adopting the Greenpeace precedent,
Singh's words fall beyond the sphere of fact-based criticism and constitute
unlawful trademark disparagement and cannot be revoked under section 30 of
the act.
41. Thus, Arjun Singh’s unauthorized and misleading use of XYZ Nutrition’s
trademark violates Section 29(8)(c)55, warranting immediate legal action and
damages.

4.3 Allegations Are Baseless Due to Procedural Lapses and Violation of Natural
Justice:

54
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International CS (os) 1407/2010
55
Supra 16

Page 22 of 27
 42. The plaintiff's adherence to regulation criteria must not be questioned arbitrarily.
Although the plaintiff, XYZ Nutrition Pvt. Ltd., has secured the essential permits
and regulatory permissions for the manufacture and marketing of its XYZ Ghee
from the FSSA of Vedasurya (FSSV). The defendant's assertions about product
adulteration are fabricated because they ignore the plaintiff's scrupulous
compliance to food safety and quality standards.
43. In Nestlé India Ltd. & Ors. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India &
Ors. (2015)56 the Hon'ble Court reiterated that false and unconfirmed complaints
regarding a product can create significant reputational and economic damages.
The Court decided that regulatory evaluations must adhere to due process before
issuing public charges.
44. Similarly, in this case, the Defendant made defamatory comments without first
confirming the product in a government-authorized laboratory or following the
legally required procedure, which resulted in a procedural lap. The Plaintiff's
veracity cannot be called into doubt because of an untrustworthy third-party
private testing agency report that lacks legal standing.
45. The principle of natural justice necessitates that any adverse allegations against
a company's goods be made in a fair and open manner. this includes:
• Testing at an FSSAI-approved laboratory or any other government-
authorized testing laboratory
• Notifying the concerned company of the reported quality concerns.
• By providing a reasonable chance for the corporation to reply and offer
proof.
46. In the Maggi Case, the Court determined that Nestlé India was not given
sufficient notice or an opportunity to defend itself before a ban on Maggi
noodles was enforced. The faulty method sparked an unwarranted and
destructive public backlash against the corporation, eroding its market position
and consumer trust.
47. In the current instance, the defendant failed to observe any procedural
precautions, including:
• Getting product samples from a legally approved source.

56
Nestlé India Ltd. & Ors. v. Food Safety and Standards Authority of India & Ors AIR 2016 (NOC) 225
(BOM.)

Page 23 of 27
 • Performing testing at a government-approved laboratory.
• Communicating the results to the Plaintiff prior to disseminating deceptive
remarks.
• Allowing the Plaintiff a fair opportunity to respond to the claims.

48. This case sets a strong precedent for restraining misleading statements that harm
consumer perception and corporate reputation. In this case by applying the same
principle, the Defendant’s unverified and defamatory statements must be strictly
curtailed through appropriate legal remedies.

V. Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction and monetary
damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and defamation by Arjun
Singh?

49. XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is liable to both a permanent injunction and
monetary damages as compensation for trademark infringement and defamation
caused by Arjun Singh's deceptive video. The legal rules that regulate these
remedies are well established under the Code of Civil Procedure (1908), the
Specific Relief Act (1963), the Trade Marks Act (1999), and the Indian Penal
Code (1860).

5.1. Entitlement to a Permanent Injunction: Preventing Additional Damage to

Reputation and Business:
50. A perpetual injunction is appropriate in circumstances where a defendant has
breached the plaintiff's legal rights, resulting in irreparable injury that cannot be
addressed only by monetary damages. The legal basis that underpins XYZ
Nutrition's claim includes:

Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, provides for
temporary injunctions to prevent additional injury and protect the status quo.

Sections 36 and 38 of the Specific Relief Act of 196357 allow for a permanent
injunction when legal rights are infringed.

57
Supa 17

Page 24 of 27
 51. The petitioner has demonstrated the grounds for issuing an injunction since the
prima facie case is of trademark infringement and defamation. Furthermore, the
defendants have caused irreparable harm to XYZ Nutrition's brand and finances
by continually disseminating damaging information. Furthermore, the balance
of convenience is considered, since the damage incurred by XYZ Nutrition
surpasses the defendant's difficulties in removing the video.
52. The courts have historically recognized the necessity for injunctive relief in
circumstances of false advertising, trade disparagement, and defamation, which
strengthens XYZ Nutrition Private Limited's claim for a permanent injunction
against the disputed film. Given the defendant, Arjun Singh's false and deceptive
representations, the video's ongoing availability constitutes an immediate and
irreparable danger to the plaintiff's reputation, goodwill, and market position.
53. In Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet Bhansali (2019)58, the Bombay High Court ordered an
interim injunction against a YouTuber who made deceptive remarks about a
product, recognizing that social media material may have a substantial influence
on customer perception and brand reputation. The current case provides an even
greater basis for injunctive relief, as Singh's video unfairly represents XYZ
Nutrition's product as contaminated and hazardous, resulting in public scepticism
and financial losses. The concept articulated in Marico applies immediately, as
Singh's careless and deceptive information has already caused significant injury,
justifying a permanent injunction to avoid additional reputational damage.
54. Furthermore, in the case Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk
Marketing Federation Ltd. (2017), 59 the Delhi High Court issued a stay in a case
involving misleading comparison advertising, ruling that any attempt to mislead
consumers by unfairly targeting a competitor's product requires immediate legal
action. If Singh's video erroneously compares XYZ Nutrition's product with
other brands to indicate that it is inferior, it constitutes trade disparagement,
which, according to law, authorizes injunctive action to restrain unfair
competition and safeguard consumer interests.
55. The defendant's deceptive and slanderous assertions have already led to
decreased customer trust, unfavourable publicity, and financial damages for

58
Supra 19
59
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. AIR 2017,

Page 25 of 27
 XYZ Nutrition. In addition to this direct financial loss, the continuous
dissemination of the contested film constitutes an urgent threat to the plaintiff's
market position, necessitating a permanent injunction.
56. The long-term damage to XYZ Nutrition's goodwill and the continuous danger
of reputational injury, it is clear that a permanent injunction must be issued to
prevent Singh from further disseminating the disputed video and other deceptive
information. These established legal precedents strengthen the plaintiff's
entitlement to protection from defamatory and misleading assertions, and failing
to obtain an injunction would enable the harm to continue, undermining the basic
principles of fair trade and brand integrity. Therefore, the plaintiff is entitled to
a speedy and permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent any
additional harm to its company and image.
57. The Plaintiff has demonstrated that the loss of a single client or has established
that the Defendant's acts have caused or are likely to cause such damage, they
will have met the requirements for special damages. In case Dabur India Ltd. v.
Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. 60in Para 10.2, the Delhi High Court explained that
exceptional damage is defined by the character of the harm caused rather than
the quantity of loss, especially where the monetary loss cannot be properly
quantified or compensated.
58. In this case, Arjun Singh's deceptive and defamatory film sparked widespread
customer scepticism, resulting in a loss of market goodwill and a drop in sales.
While the exact financial effect may not always be quantified, XYZ Nutrition's
right to special damages is supported by customer loss, market volatility, and
intangible but indisputable reputational injury to future company opportunities.
As noted in Dabur India Ltd., reputational harm frequently results in financial
losses that are difficult to quantify but have a substantial influence on a
company's status. Given these circumstances, XYZ Nutrition is entitled to
special damages because Singh's deceptive content significantly affected
customer perception and sales, necessitating compensatory remedies.

60
Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd. FAO (OS) No. 625 of 2009

Page 26 of 27
 PRAYER

WHEREFORE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ISSUES RAISED, ARGUMENTS ADVANCED AND

AUTHORITIES CITED, IT IS PRAYED THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO:

➢ The suit filed before this Hon’ble Court is maintainable as the petitioner has
exhausted all his remedy.
➢ The video must be taken down as it solely is a commercial advantage to the
defendant.
➢ The impugned video must be immediately removal from all platforms as it defames
XYZ Nutrition Limited.
➢ The defendant has without consent used the trademark which amounts to trademark
infringement and brand dilution.
➢ The petitioner shall be granted with permanent injunction and compensation.

AND ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS HON’BLE COURT MAY BE PLEASED TO GRANT IN THE

INTEREST OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE, ALL OF WHICH IS RESPECTFULLY

SUBMITTED.

COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER

Page 27 of 27