Karnataka High Court
Infifrest Foods Limited vs Youtube Llc on 14 November, 2025
Author: Pradeep Singh Yerur
Bench: Pradeep Singh Yerur
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:46724
WP No. 34220 of 2025
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 14TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
WRIT PETITION NO. 34220 OF 2025 (GM-CPC)
BETWEEN:
1. INFIFRESH FOODS LIMITED
(FORMERLY INFIFRESH FOODS
PRIVATE LIMITED)
A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS REGISTERED
OFFICE AT 10TH FLOOR
URBAN VAULT CITRINE
SY.NO.43/4, SANJEEVINI NAGAR
HEBBAL VILLAGE
BENGALURU-560092
REPRESENTED BY ITS AUTHORISED
REPRESENTATIVE
SRI. PRAKHAR SHARMA
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI VAIBHAV MALIMATH, ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed 1. YOUTUBE LLC
by
GAVRIBIDANUR A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
SUBRAMANYA RESIDENT GRIEVANCE
GUPTA OFFICER FOR YOUTUBE
SREENATH
GOOGLE LLC - INDIA LIAISON OFFICE
Location: HIGH
COURT OF UNIT NO.26
KARNATAKA THE EXECUTIVE CENTER
LEVEL 8, DLF CENTRE
SANSAD MARG
CONNAUGHT PLACE
NEW DELHI 110001
E-MAIL: [email protected]
ALSO AT: YOUTUBE LLC
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:46724
WP No. 34220 of 2025
HC-KAR
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
C/O GOOGLE INDIA PRIVATE
LIMITED, 4TH FLOOR, TOWER E
RMZ INFINITY, NO.3
SWAMI VIVEKANANDA RD.
SADANANDANAGAR
BENNIGANA HALLI
BENGALURU-560016.
ALSO AT,
YOUTUBE LLC
A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY
HAVING ITS OFFICE AT NO.901
CHERRY AVE, SANBRUNO
CA-94066, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
...RESPONDENT
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE
ORDER DATED 05.11.2025 IN O.S.NO.7626/2025 PASSED BY
THE HON'BLE CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE (CCH-18)
(ANNEXURE-H) AT I.A.NO.1 INSOFAR AS IT REJECTS THE
GRANTING OF EX-PARTE AD-INTERIM ORDER OF TEMPORARY
INJUNCTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY
HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP SINGH YERUR
ORAL ORDER
Heard learned counsel for petitioner.
2. This petition is filed by the petitioner-plaintiff seeking following reliefs:
-3-
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR " WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this Hon'ble court may be pleased to A) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order, or direction setting aside the Order dated 05.11.2025 in O.S. No. 7626/2025 passed by the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-18) (Annexure H), in so far as it rejects the granting of Ex-Parte Ad-Interim Order of Temporary Injunction, At LAND 1 B) Allow the Interim Application filed by the Petitioner dated 31.10.2025 in O.S. No. 7626/2025 before the Hon'ble City Civil and Sessions Judge (CCH-18) (Annexure G) and grant ex-parte ad-
interim injunction, and C) Pass such other and further orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the interest of justice and equity."
3. A suit in O.S.No.7626/2025 came to be filed on 31.10.2025 for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from telecasting/transmitting/publishing/ distributing/sharing any material which is false, malicious, defamatory and derogatory news concerning or relating to -4- NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR the plaintiff directly or indirectly. Along with the plaint, the plaintiff filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC seeking an ad interim ex parte order of temporary injunction with the relief sought therein.
4. After hearing the learned counsel for plaintiff, the trial Court has issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1 to the defendant along with suit summons and posted the case on 01.12.2025. Therefore, the petitioner-plaintiff is before this Court for non passing of the orders by the trial Court on the application filed by him wherein he had sought an ad interim order of temporary injunction restraining the defendant, his agents, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them for the said relief as mentioned in Document No.5 pending disposal of the suit.
5. It is the contention of learned counsel for petitioner that the plaintiff is in the business of supplying meat, fish and other seafood products on wholesale -5- NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR Business to Business basis in India. The plaintiff is also engaged in the business of packaged seafood worldwide. The plaintiff is neither in the business of investment schemes calling for public money, nor has launched any such mobile applications calling for investment.
6. It is further contended that the plaintiff is solely engaged in the business under the name and style "Captain Fresh" and has a registered trademark on the word "Captain Fresh." It also operates branches across India and globally. It is a well-known and well-recognized Company in India. It has gained an excellent reputation in the business of supplying meat, fish and other seafood products on wholesale basis.
7. The plaintiff has filed the confidential offer document Pre-Draft Red Herring Prospectus (for short, 'PDRHP') with the Securities and Exchange Commission of India (SEBI), National Stock Exchange of India Limited (NSE) and BSE Limited (BSE). This being the state of -6- NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR affairs, within 45 days from the date of filing of the PDRHP, the plaintiff has come across YouTube channels unauthorisedly using the "Captain Fresh" logo, brand name, mobile applications and making various defamatory content against the plaintiff. These videos have been popularised through YouTube and Telegram channels and these videos are available till date. These videos reflect clear mala fide intention of the author of such videos.
8. The plaintiff, in fact, reported through several channels on YouTube that they are in clear violation of the plaintiff's trademark rights and YouTube has removed some of the said videos. However, despite this, some videos are still being circulated, which is causing significant harm and collateral damage to the plaintiff's reputation in India as well as abroad. The plaintiff also complained to the Commissioner of Police and the Cyber Crime Authorities about such videos. -7-
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR
9. It is further contended that the defendant, i.e., the YouTube channel, is the platform on which these videos have been uploaded. In fact, the list of videos, their video links, the channel author name, the title of the video and the number of views are still being floated and run by the YouTube channels. In the said videos, the said authors make grave and damaging statements, insinuating that the plaintiff's business is fake and that there are problems associated while dealing with the plaintiff, which is false and defamatory.
10. It is also contended that they are fake, fraudulent and mischievous content alluring the public at large, who may trust and invest in such fraudulent investment schemes. It is further contended that the said videos and contents are completely false and misleading, as it refers to a mobile application named "Captain Fresh,"
whereas the plaintiff has a registered trademark, namely "Captain Fresh".-8-
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR
11. It is further contended that these videos have been uploaded with the sole intention to mislead the public at large, defame the plaintiff and create negative public opinion against the plaintiff. There is no truthfulness in such videos being circulated against the plaintiff. Therefore, the plaintiff, who had a stellar and unblemished record and performance in the market and industry, is now being defamed by unnecessary, frivolous, fraudulent, infectious and false claims and the circulation of the said videos is tarnishing the image of the plaintiff.
12. It is the grievance of the plaintiff that due to such videos and circulation of the content in the public social media, innocent public investors would have invested in such a fraudulent application and consequently, the plaintiff may suffer a great deal of humiliation and anguish. Therefore, the said videos have caused grave prejudice in the minds of the public at large. Hence, the plaintiff has filed an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC for an ad interim order -9- NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR of temporary injunction restraining the defendant from circulating, broadcasting, or putting up such content in social media, namely, the YouTube channel and other channels.
13. Despite such averments being made by the plaintiff in the affidavit annexed to the application and in the pleadings of the plaint, the trial Court has not taken into consideration these relevant important aspects for consideration of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC by the plaintiff, either by granting or rejecting an ad interim ex parte temporary injunction and has merely issued emergent notice on I.A.No.1 to the defendant along with suit summons.
14. Aggrieved by which, the petitioner is before this Court.
15. This Court does not find any need or necessity to issue notice to the respondent-defendant, as the notice to
- 10 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR the defendant though issued, has not been served and defendant has not appeared before the trial Court, neither before this Court.
16. When such an application is made with regard to the defamatory statements and publication of certain scandalous remarks and circulation of publication, which is defamatory in nature against the plaintiff in the social media, in the YouTube channel and other channels, it becomes the duty and obligation of the trial Court, all the more, the onus is on the trial Court to go through these materials in detail in a cautious manner, which is sought, and the trial Court requires to update itself with regard to the present day scenario of the technology being misused and social media platform being used to publicise and sensationalise such issues.
17. In the present generation and in the present case, every second, news is floating through social media thereby the YouTube channel and other channels are
- 11 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR alleged to be tarnishing and defaming the image of the plaintiff. It is the duty of the trial Court to consider the application in an urgent manner as the reliefs are sought for restraining the defendant from publishing any further such content in the YouTube or other channels, which is circulated in seconds widely not only in India it travels across the world as well, thereby damage is alleged to be caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, based on the present day social circumstances, the technological misuse and the consequences that happens to such parties who approach the Court, the trial Court would have to decide such application expeditiously, cautiously and by applying its mind.
18. In the present case on hand, if the trial Court has understood these intricacies, technological advancements and damage that would be caused in the social media, which promotes such circulation, it would have restrained the defendant from proceeding further by passing orders either allowing or rejecting by a detailed order with
- 12 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR consideration and reasons, which has not been done in the present case.
19. Under the circumstances, this Court is not inclined to take up the matter to decide the application, as it is for the trial Court to deal with the matter and decide the application in a swift manner rather than not acting upon it like typical applications that are filed restraining the defendants from interfering or putting up any construction, which also of course, in my opinion, if not restrained in the right moment, would also cause damage to the property. However, the very purpose of the provisions under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of CPC is to go through the application and understand the urgency and pass interim orders at the behest of the plaintiff by a considered and reasoned order. Therefore, the trial Court having not passed any such order by merely issuing emergent notice, this Court is of the opinion that the matter requires to be remitted to the trial Court to consider the matter as early as possible and pass orders
- 13 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR within three days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
20. Accordingly, I pass the following:
ORDER i. This petition is disposed of; ii. The matter is remitted back to the trial Court to consider the matter as early as possible and pass orders within three days from the date of receipt of copy of the order;
iii. There is no requirement for setting aside of the order of the trial Court, as the trial Court has not passed any order in the matter except issuance of emergent notice along with suit summons. However, the trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of the application filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of CPC as expeditiously as possible on the plaintiff moving the Court with an application for advancement which shall be accepted, heard and a considered, reasoned order shall be passed on the application within a period of three days from the date of advancement;
- 14 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR iv. It is made clear that since the summons are issued and it is awaited and the next date is given on 01.12.2025, the trial Court shall proceed to pass orders on the said application irrespective of the issuance of summons and awaiting of summons to the respondent- defendant, in view of the observations made herein;
v. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the matter except expressing the urgency that is shown by the petitioner-plaintiff and the trial Court having not considered the same and pass suitable orders in accordance with law; vi. Further, it would be necessary to direct the trial Court in all such matters to consider the application by looking into the proviso to Rule 3 of Order XXXIX of CPC where the plaintiff urges the urgent interim relief and the same could be passed ex parte prior to issuance of notice to the defendant, when exceptional extraordinary circumstances are made out. The same has to be considered and kept in mind when such applications are filed before the trial Court rather than merely issuing notice on the
- 15 -
NC: 2025:KHC:46724 WP No. 34220 of 2025 HC-KAR application by stating that "the defendant is to be heard" in some cases;
vii. Learned counsel for petitioner is permitted to advance and argue the matter before the trial Court by placing a copy of this order. Ordered accordingly.
Sd/-
(PRADEEP SINGH YERUR) JUDGE CPN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 11