Bangalore District Court
Itc Limited vs Vinay Gupta on 2 July, 2025
KABC170012332024
IN THE COURT OF LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE,
COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU (CCH-84)
Present: Sri S. Sudindranath, LL.M., M.B.L.,
LXXXIII ADDL. CITY CIVIL & SESSIONS JUDGE
BENGALURU.
COM.O.S.No.629/2024
Dated on this 2nd day of July 2025
Plaintiff/s ITC LIMITED
A company within the meaning of the
Companies Act, 2013
Having its Registered Office at 37,
Jawaharlal Nehru Road,
Kolkata - 700071
And the Office its Foods Division at
ITC Limited, No.18, Banaswadi Main
Road, Maruthiseva Nagar,
Bengaluru - 560005
Rep. by its Authorized Signatory
Mr Raghavan Kalyanaraman Venkata
(By Sri Tejas S R, Advocate)
// versus //
Defendant/s 1. VINAY GUPTA
Aged about 29 years
S/o Mr. Satya Prakash Gupta
Having its address at :
H.No.384, Sector -43,
Golf Course Road,
Galleria DLF-IV, Gurugram,
Haryana - 122009
2
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc
KABC170012332024
2:META PLATFORMS INC
A company incorporated under the Laws
of United States of America
Having its office at :
No.1601,Willow road, Menlo Park,
California - 94025,
United States of America
(D1 - Exparte)
(D2 - by Ms. Gawry Cootaiah,
Advocate)
Date of Institution of suit : 23-04-2024
Nature of the suit : Injunction, Recovery of
damages
Date of commencement of : 21-10-2024
recording of the evidence
Date on which the : 02-07-2025
Judgment was pronounced.
: Year/s Month/s Day/s
Total duration
01 02 09
JUDGMENT
This is a suit filed by plaintiff company against defendant No. 1 and 2 for injunction, recovery of damages and other reliefs.
2. The plaint averments in brief are that, the plaintiff is a well-established business house in field of FMCG products, including branded packaged foods. Plaintiff is a market leader insofar as packaged multigrain flour and packaged 3 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 wheat flour under brand name of Aashirvaad and plaintiff has been in business of marketing and sale of packaged atta for last 20 years and in business of marketing and sale of packaged multigrain flour under brand Aashirvaad for last 10 years. The grievance of plaintiff is that, all of a sudden, on 21-12-2023, defendant No. 1 has published defamatory content against plaintiff's packaged atta of Aashirvaad brand by putting up certain videos in his Instagram account, which Instagram is owned and administered by defendant No. 2. The defamatory imputations made by defendant No. 1 against packaged atta of plaintiff is that, such packaged atta contains preservatives and emulsifiers which are harmful to body and all naturally occurring vitamins are removed while processing atta and in addition, packaged atta contains various harmful chemicals which will result in diseases such as high BP, diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease and skin diseases and that such packaged atta contains bleaching agent to increase their shelf life and they are made of low quality grains. Although above defamatory statements are made against packaged atta in general, while making defamatory imputations, package of 4 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 plaintiff's Aashirvaad atta is displayed, thereby, implying that said imputations are being made against plaintiff's packaged atta. Further, defendant No. 1 in his disparaging and defamatory videos has used plaintiff's corporate logo thereby imputing above harmful effects to packaged atta of plaintiff. It is pleaded that, plaintiff ensures that its atta is made from choicest grains which are ground using modern technique and defamatory imputations made against Plaintiff's product is totally false and without any basis. It is pleaded that such false imputations made by defendant No. 1 in irresponsible manner is causing great harm to brand value and image built up by plaintiff over years by dint of providing good quality atta at competitive prices. Further, it is pleaded that by using registered trademark and logo of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has infringed the trademark of Plaintiff under section 29 (8) of Trademarks Act 1999. Although defamatory content is put up by defendant No. 1, since same is put up in social media which is owned and operated by defendant No. 2, it is pleaded that defendant No. 2 is made party only for purpose of complying with any orders that may be passed by this court in respect of 5 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 takedown of offending Instagram pages. With these pleadings, plaintiff is before this court seeking following reliefs;
Permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from infringing the plaintiff's registered trademarks or using or depicting the plaintiff's registered trademarks in any manner that may amount to infringement of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
Permanent injunction restraining
defendant No. 1 from transmitting,
publishing, or sharing any information or material relating to the plaintiff's trademarks or products in any manner defaming, disparaging the plaintiff.
Permanent injunction restraining
defendant No. 1 from publishing,
distributing, or sharing any defamatory content about the plaintiff's products. 6
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 Mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to permanently remove and delete defamatory content in the three URLs described in the schedule to the plaint. Mandatory injunction to defendant No. 2 to remove and delete defamatory content contained in the URLs in the suit schedule or any variation thereof in any language in relation to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's products, if it is republished, re-uploaded, and re-shared.
Mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to publish an unconditional written public apology with regard to defamatory content in prominent English and vernacular daily newspapers.
Recovery of compensatory damages of Rs. 10 crores from the Defendant No. 1.
3. The list of 3 URLs containing the defamatory content uploaded by defendant no.1 on the social media platform 7 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 owned and operated by defendant no.2 are stated in detail in the schedule to the plaint and are hereinafter referred to as suit schedule URLs.
4. On issuance of suit summons to defendants, suit summons of defendant No. 1 was initially returned as vacated address. Thereafter, plaintiff filed application for paper publication which was allowed and on basis of paper publication in Business Standard, English and Hindi newspaper Haryana edition, service of defendant No. 1 is held sufficient and he is placed ex parte.
5. Defendant No. 2 has entered appearance through counsel and filed detailed written statement. Essentially, stand taken by defendant No. 2 in written statement is that defendant No. 2 is an intermediary and therefore immune from liability under provisions of Information Technology Act. As per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India reported in 2015 (5) SCC 1, liability of an intermediary for third party content arises only when intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a valid court order or upon being notified by appropriate government agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 8 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 19 (2) of Constitution are going to be committed, fails to action such material. And thereby, it is contended that, intermediary is only required to act upon receipt of a valid court order and cannot be held liable before such receipt. On this basis, it was contended that on receiving the interim order passed by this court dated 24-04-2024, defendant No. 2 has actioned or taken down the offending Instagram pages and therefore, since defendant No. 2 has already complied with court order in that regard, suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2.
6. On basis of above rival pleadings, this court has framed following issues;
(1) Whether plaintiff proves that defendant No. 1 has infringed the registered trademarks of plaintiff and defendant No. 1 has published false and defamatory content in respect of products and registered trademarks of plaintiff in social media platform of defendant No. 2?
9
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 (2) Whether defendant No. 2 proves that present suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2 under Section 79 (1) of Information Technology Act?
(3) Whether plaintiff is entitled to the reliefs claimed?
(4) What order or decree?
7. In the trial, authorized representative of plaintiff company is examined as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P25. Counsel for defendant No. 2 submitted that she has no cross-examination of PW 1, since defendant No. 2 is only intermediary. Further, defendant No. 2 has not adduced evidence on same ground. Therefore, above oral and documentary evidence adduced by plaintiff has remained undisputed and there is also no rebuttal evidence.
8. After evidence of both sides was closed, I have heard the arguments of both sides and perused records of case.
9. My answer to issues are as follows;
Issue No. 1 : In affirmative.
10
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 Issue No. 2 : In negative.
Issue No. 3 : As per finding.
Issue No. 4 : As per final order for following :-
REASONS.
Issue No. 1:-
10. The case of plaintiff in brief is that, the plaintiff is a well-established business house in field of FMCG products, including branded packaged foods. Plaintiff is a market leader insofar as packaged multigrain flour and packaged wheat flour under brand name of Aashirvaad and plaintiff has been in business of marketing and sale of packaged atta for last 20 years and in business of marketing and sale of packaged multigrain flour under brand Aashirvaad for last 10 years. The grievance of plaintiff is that, all of a sudden, on 21-12-2023, defendant No. 1 has published defamatory content against plaintiff's packaged atta of Aashirvaad brand by putting up certain videos in his Instagram account, which Instagram is owned and administered by defendant No. 2. The defamatory imputations made by defendant No. 1 against packaged atta of plaintiff is that, such packaged 11 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 atta contains preservatives and emulsifiers which are harmful to body and all naturally occurring vitamins are removed while processing atta and in addition, packaged atta contains various harmful chemicals which will result in diseases such as high BP, diabetes, kidney disease, heart disease and skin diseases and that such packaged atta contains bleaching agent to increase their shelf life and they are made of low quality grains. Although above defamatory statements are made against packaged atta in general, while making defamatory imputations, package of plaintiff's Aashirvaad atta is displayed, thereby, implying that said imputations are being made against plaintiff's packaged atta. Further, defendant No. 1 in his disparaging and defamatory videos has used plaintiff's corporate logo thereby imputing above harmful effects to packaged atta of plaintiff. It is pleaded that, plaintiff ensures that its atta is made from choicest grains which are ground using modern technique and defamatory imputations made against Plaintiff's product is totally false and without any basis. It is pleaded that such false imputations made by defendant No. 1 in irresponsible manner is causing great harm to brand 12 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 value and image built up by plaintiff over years by dint of providing good quality atta at competitive prices. Further, it is pleaded that by using registered trademark and logo of plaintiff, defendant No. 1 has infringed the trademark of Plaintiff under section 29 (8) of Trademarks Act 1999. Although defamatory content is put up by defendant No. 1, since same is put up in social media which is owned and operated by defendant No. 2, it is pleaded that defendant No. 2 is made party only for purpose of complying with any orders that may be passed by this court in respect of takedown of offending Instagram pages. With these pleadings, plaintiff is before this court seeking following reliefs;
Permanent injunction restraining
defendant No. 1 from infringing the
plaintiff's registered trademarks or using or depicting the plaintiff's registered trademarks in any manner that may amount to infringement of the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.
13
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 Permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from transmitting, publishing, or sharing any information or material relating to the plaintiff's trademarks or products in any manner defaming, disparaging the plaintiff.
Permanent injunction restraining
defendant No. 1 from publishing,
distributing, or sharing any defamatory content about the plaintiff's products. Mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to permanently remove and delete defamatory content in the three URLs described in the schedule to the plaint. Mandatory injunction to defendant No. 2 to remove and delete defamatory content contained in the URLs in the suit schedule or any variation thereof in any language in relation to the plaintiff or the plaintiff's products, if it is republished, re-uploaded, and re-shared.
14
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 Mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to publish an unconditional written public apology with regard to defamatory content in prominent English and vernacular daily newspapers.
Recovery of compensatory damages of Rs.
10 crores from the Defendant No. 1.
11. In support of its case, plaintiff has examined its authorized representative as PW1 and got marked Ex. P1 to P25.
12. Ex. P1 is the authorization issued by Executive Vice President and Company Secretary of Plaintiff Company in favor of PW1. Ex. P2 is 65B certificate. Ex. P3 is certified copy of Power of Attorney executed by Plaintiff Company in favor of executant of Ex. P1. In other words, Plaintiff Company has executed Power of Attorney in favor of Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh under Ex. P3 and he in turn has delegated authority to represent company in present suit to PW1 as per Ex. P1. Ex. P4 is resolution passed by Board of Directors of Plaintiff Company to execute Power of Attorney in favor of aforesaid Mr. Rajendra Kumar Singh. 15
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024
13. Ex. P5 is CD said to contain offending videos uploaded by defendant No. 1 on social media platform of defendant No. 2. Ex. P6 is printout of storyboard of the offending video.
14. Ex. P7 to 9 are original packaging of plaintiff's products along with photographic representation of same. Amongst these, Ex. P7 is old packaging of plaintiff's Aashirvaad multigrain atta. Ex. P8 is new packaging of plaintiff's Aashirvaad multigrain atta. Ex. P9 is packaging of plaintiff's packaged atta (wheat flour.)
15. Ex. P10 to 17 are certificates of registered trademarks of plaintiff. Ex. P18 is test report of FARE Labs in respect of whole wheat atta and atta with multigrains of plaintiff stating that tested sample conforms to FSSR 2011 or in other words to show that plaintiff's products conform to Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011 and on that basis to show that defamatory imputations made by defendant No. 1 against said products are false.
16. Ex. P19 and P20 are again the packaging of plaintiff's products along with photographic representation of the same and purpose of producing all these packages is to 16 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 show that defendant No. 1 has referred to plaintiff's products in his offending videos.
Ex. P21 are original invoices to show sale of plaintiff's products within jurisdiction of this court. Ex. P22 is 65B certificate.
17. Ex. P23 is printout of email under which report of Nielsen IQ (NIQ) has been forwarded and Ex. P24 is said attachment to email. And as per said report, plaintiff's Aashirvaad brand of atta is ranked first in value sales during relevant period. Ex. P25 is again another 65B certificate in support of digital evidence at Ex. P23 and 24.
18. As already noted supra, defendant No. 1 is ex parte and defendant No. 2, although has contested suit, has chosen not to cross-examine PW1 or to lead rebuttal evidence on ground that defendant No. 2 is only an intermediary.
19. The only contention taken by defendant No. 2 in written statement is that, defendant No. 2 is an intermediary and therefore immune from liability under provisions of Information Technology Act. As per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union 17 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 of India reported in 2015 (5) SCC 1, liability of an intermediary for third party content arises only when intermediary upon receiving actual knowledge from a valid court order or upon being notified by appropriate government agency that unlawful acts relatable to Article 19 (2) of Constitution are going to be committed, fails to action such material. And thereby, it is contended that, intermediary is only required to act upon receipt of a valid court order and cannot be held liable before such receipt. On this basis, it was contended that on receiving the interim order passed by this court dated 24-04-2024, defendant No. 2 has actioned or taken down the offending Instagram pages and therefore, since defendant No. 2 has already complied with court order in that regard, suit is not maintainable against defendant No. 2.
20. Having considered rival contentions of both sides and oral and documentary evidence on record, under issue No. 1, court has to see whether plaintiff has proved that defendant No. 1 has infringed registered trademarks of plaintiff and has published false and defamatory content in respect of products and registered 18 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 trademarks of plaintiff in social media platform of defendant No. 2.
21. In this regard, at outset, to show that plaintiff is a market leader in category of packaged wheat flour and multigrain atta is concerned, plaintiff has produced report of Nielsen IQ (NIQ) which is at Ex. P. 24, which shows that for relevant period in June 2023, plaintiff's brand of Aashirvaad products ranked first in value sales in atta segment of packaged atta category. Even otherwise, the Plaint averments that, plaintiff is in business of marketing and sale of packaged atta for 20 years and multigrain atta for 10 years is not seriously disputed by defendant No. 2 who is only intermediary and defendant No. 1 is ex parte and has not contested the suit. Therefore, on basis of above material on record, it has to be held that, plaintiff has proved that plaintiff has established brand value and goodwill in respect of its products under brand name of Aashirvaad atta.
22. The next question is whether defendant No. 1 has uploaded false and defamatory content in respect of plaintiff's products on Instagram which is social media 19 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 platform owned and operated by defendant No. 2 and thereby defamed plaintiff's products and also infringed its registered trademarks. In this regard, CD containing offending videos uploaded by defendant No. 1 to Instagram is produced at Ex. P5. Printout of storyboard of said video is at Ex. P6. The perusal of Ex. P6 discloses that in said video, defendant No. 1 firstly draws adverse comparison between atta ground in mill and packaged atta by adversely comparing the two and stating that atta which is ground in mill spoils within a month but packaged atta does not go bad for several months. Then, he gives reason for same by stating that processed packaged atta contains preservatives and emulsifiers which while preventing atta from going bad harms consumers. He then states that during process of manufacturing packaged atta, all naturally present vitamins get removed and apart from that companies marketing and selling packaged atta use various harmful chemicals to prevent atta from going bad quickly and these chemicals cause various diseases to consumers and to extend shelf life even bleaching agents are used. And then defendant No. 1 further states that reason why packaged atta costs 20 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 less than regular atta is because companies use low quality wheat grains.
23. All above imputations against packaged atta are accompanied by representative pictures and whenever there is reference to packaged atta, package of plaintiff's product is shown by covering the name Aashirvaad. However, in the said pictorial representation, logo of plaintiff namely "ITC" is clearly visible and any person seeing said the video would know that reference is to plaintiff's products because plaintiff's packaging is well known since it is a market leader in packaged atta. Therefore, it is clear that, certain per se defamatory statements are made by defendant No. 1 and imputation is clear that these defamatory statements are being made against plaintiff's products because these imputations are made while showing package of plaintiff's products.
24. Since these imputations are per se defamatory, there is no need for plaintiff to further prove that these imputations have resulted in harm to brand value of plaintiff. Further, since rest of trademark of plaintiff is shown in video, albeit by covering up name Aashirvaad but 21 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 showing logo of plaintiff as "ITC", it follows that defendant No. 1 has also infringed plaintiff's registered trademarks since defendant No. 1 has used registered trademarks of plaintiff in his videos without permission of defendant No. 1. By making defamatory imputations against plaintiff's products while using plaintiff's trademark, the Defendant No. 1 has committed an act, which amounts to advertising which is against reputation of trademark and hence constitutes infringement of registered trademark under section 29 (8) of Trademarks Act 1999.
25. To show that defamatory imputations made in video against plaintiff's products are false, plaintiff relies upon test report at Ex. P18 issued by FARE labs in which said lab on testing sample products of plaintiff has given report that it conforms to FSSR 2011 which means that plaintiff's products meet standards set by Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011. Therefore, when plaintiff's products meet requirements of Food Safety and Standards Regulations, it is not open for defendant No. 1 to make defamatory imputations that plaintiff's 22 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 products contain harmful chemicals which will cause harm to consumers.
26. Apart from this, it is to be noted that, defendant No. 1 has not appeared and contested the present suit by taking up plea of either truth or public interest in respect of imputations made in the offending video. Apart from this, it appears from facts of case that, defendant No. 1 is not specially qualified to make such imputations and assertions against plaintiff's products. Finally, it appears from records that defendant No. 1 has also not lodged any formal complaint or initiated any legal action before concerned authorities in case plaintiff's products do not meet standards and requirements of Food Safety and Standards Regulations 2011. Without any of these prerequisites and without having any technical knowledge, it is not open to defendant No. 1 to upload defamatory content which will result in dilution of brand value and goodwill built up by plaintiff over last several years. Accordingly, I hold that plaintiff has proved issue No. 1 and I answer issue No. 1 in affirmative.
Issue No. 2:-
23
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024
27. Defendant No. 2 has taken up the plea that it is only an intermediary under Information Technology Act 2000 and hence, as per law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, reported in 2015 (5) SCC 1, intermediary is only required to act upon receipt of valid court order or request from authorized government agency and cannot be held liable before such receipt. An intermediary's liability for third-party content arises only when intermediary, upon receiving such knowledge of court order or order of appropriate government, fails to action such material. On this basis, it is contended by defendant No. 2 that present suit is not maintainable insofar as against defendant No. 2 is concerned.
28. In this regard, it is to be noted that, in the plaint at paragraph 10, page 4, it is specifically pleaded that defendant No. 2 has been made party in present suit in order to comply with orders of this court in taking down defamatory content and any similar videos which may disparage, denigrate, and defame plaintiff and plaintiff's products. Therefore, plaintiff is also conscious of the limited liability of intermediary and in this case, only relief sought 24 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 against defendant No. 2 is insofar as ensuring compliance of any order that may be passed by this court to take down or action posts and videos uploaded defaming Plaintiff.
29. Therefore, nature of relief sought in present suit against defendant No. 2 does not fall foul of law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in Shreya Singhal case. Even as per the plaint averments, only purpose of impleading defendant No. 2 is in order to comply with court orders. Therefore, it has to be held that present suit is maintainable against defendant No. 2 and accordingly I answer issue No. 2 in negative.
Issue No. 3 :-
30. While answering issue No. 1, I have already held that plaintiff has proved that defendant No. 1 has posted false and defamatory videos against plaintiff's products and also infringed plaintiff's registered trademarks by using said registered trademarks in said defamatory videos. In this background, I have to see what are reliefs that can be granted to plaintiff.
31. First relief sought under Prayer (a) by plaintiff is for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from 25 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 directly or indirectly infringing plaintiff's registered trademarks or using or depicting plaintiff's registered trademarks in any manner that may amount to infringement of same. In this case, plaintiff has produced registered trademark certificates at Ex. P10 to 17. Plaintiff has produced CD containing video uploaded by defendant No. 1 and also printout of storyboard of said video which shows that defendant No. 1 has unauthorizedly used registered trademarks of plaintiff in said video. Therefore, plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed under Prayer (a) restraining defendant No. 1 from directly or indirectly infringing registered trademarks of plaintiff or anything visually similar to any of its variants or using or depicting said trademarks or visually similar mark or variants in any manner that may amount to infringement of same.
32. Second relief sought by plaintiff under Prayer (b) is for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing in any manner any information or material relating to plaintiff's trademarks or products in any medium defaming, disparaging, derogating, denigrating plaintiff 26 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 including by way of defamatory content stated in suit schedule URLs. I have already held while answering issue No. 1 that defendant No. 1 has put up defamatory content making per se defamatory imputations against plaintiff's products. I have further held while answering issue No. 1 that said defamatory imputations are proved to be false and without element of public interest involved in making such imputations. I have already held supra that plaintiff being market leader in packaged atta will suffer dilution of its brand value and goodwill built up over years by making of such defamatory imputations against its products.
33. Hence, since imputations are per se defamatory, there is no need for plaintiff to prove actual loss suffered by plaintiff as result of such defamatory content being uploaded by defendant No. 1. Hence, plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed under Prayer (b) restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing in any manner, in any medium, any content which is defamatory to plaintiff's products or registered trademarks or contains defamatory imputations in respect of plaintiff's registered trademarks or products.
27
CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024
34. Third relief claimed by plaintiff under Prayer (c) is for permanent injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing any defamatory content relating to plaintiff and or Aashirvaad atta and or Aashirvaad Superior MP atta and Aashirvaad atta with multigrains on any platform or mediums including but not limited to social media platform of defendant No. 2. For same reason as applicable to Prayer
(b) as held supra, plaintiff is also entitled to this relief since under this relief, injunction is sought against publishing of defamatory content in respect of atta under brand name Aashirvaad which belongs to plaintiff. Accordingly, I hold that, as prayed under Prayer (c), plaintiff is entitled to injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing in any manner, any content in any form defaming brand name of Aashirvaad atta of plaintiff or making any defamatory imputations against same.
35. Relief prayed under prayer column (f) is to grant mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to permanently remove, take down and disable access and delete defamatory content contained in suit schedule URLs. For same reason as applicable to above reliefs, since false 28 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 and defamatory content has been uploaded by defendant No. 1 against products of plaintiff, such relief has to be granted to plaintiff directing defendant No. 1 to take down the same. Accordingly, I hold that, as prayed under Prayer
(f) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to permanently remove, take down, disable access and delete defamatory content contained in suit schedule URLs.
36. Relief under prayer (j) is for permanent injunction against defendant No. 1 from communicating, publishing in any manner any information that may be seen as suggesting that Aashirvaad atta is dangerous, has preservatives, emulsifiers and other chemicals resulting in diseases. For same reason as applicable to afore-stated reliefs, since it is proved that defendant No. 1 on earlier occasion has made false and defamatory imputations against Aashirvaad products of plaintiff, plaintiff is entitled to this relief also. Accordingly, I hold that, as prayed under Prayer (j) defendant No. 1 has to be restrained by way of permanent injunction from publishing or communicating in any manner whatsoever any information that Aashirvaad 29 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 atta is dangerous, has preservatives and emulsifiers and contains any harmful chemicals which can lead to diseases or that it contains bleaching agent or that it is made from low quality grains.
37. However, this injunction is granted with rider that, this injunction will not prevent defendant No. 1 from making any formal representation or complaint to any government or other concerned regulatory agencies in respect of quality of plaintiff's products. And nor will this injunction prevent defendant No. 1 from taking any action before any law enforcement agencies or before any court of law in respect of products of plaintiff.
38. Next prayer under (k) is for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to publish unconditional written public apology to plaintiff with regard to defamatory content in suit schedule URLs in prominent English and vernacular newspapers in India and on social media account of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2. I have already held supra that it is proved that defendant No. 1 has made false and defamatory imputations against plaintiff's products without defendant No. 1 having any technical expertise to 30 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 make such statements. Therefore, when defendant No. 1 has, without any basis, made defamatory imputations against plaintiff's products and thereby tried to tarnish brand value and goodwill earned by plaintiff by dint of being in business for almost 20 years, certainly it is incumbent on defendant No. 1 to publish apology and accordingly I hold that, as prayed under Prayer (k) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to publish unconditional written public apology to plaintiff for having made defamatory imputations in suit schedule URLs in any 1 English and 1 vernacular daily newspaper, having good circulation and Defendant No. 1 is also directed to publish said unconditional apology in social media accounts of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2.
39. Next prayer under prayer column (L) is for recovery of compensatory damages of Rs. 10 crores. In this regard, plaintiff has not produced any material to show loss, if any, incurred by plaintiff due to defamatory content uploaded by defendant No. 1. No material is produced to show that as result of any defamation made by defendant No. 1 there was decline in sale of plaintiff's products resulting in loss to 31 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 plaintiff company. Such being case it is not proper to grant compensatory damages of Rs. 10 crores as prayed. However, as already noted supra, imputations made by defendant No. 1 are per se defamatory. Apart from this, plaintiff has already produced report as per Ex. P24 to show that plaintiff is market leader in field of packaged atta.
40. Therefore, defendant No. 1 cannot be allowed to go scot-free for having made such irresponsible and false defamatory imputations against plaintiff and its products. If damages are not awarded, it may encourage social media users to make irresponsible defamatory statements against well-established brands with oblique motives and therefore although compensatory damages to tune of Rs. 10 crores cannot be awarded, certainly some damages have to be awarded to plaintiff against defendant No. 1 since defendant No. 1 has made defamatory imputations which are false and irresponsible. In my view, considering facts and circumstances of case, proper damages to be awarded is Rs. 10 lakhs and accordingly, in respect of Prayer (L) I hold that plaintiff is entitled to recover damages of Rs. 10 lakhs from defendant No. 1, in respect of false and 32 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 defamatory content uploaded by defendant No. 1 against plaintiff and its products.
41. Apart from above reliefs which are directed against defendant No. 1 under prayer column D, E, G, H and I, certain reliefs of mandatory injunction are sought against defendant No. 2. These reliefs are essentially for mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 to remove and delete defamatory content contained in suit schedule URLs in any language in relation to plaintiff or its products that has been published and shared on website or social media platform of defendant No. 2 including reposts, re-uploads and re- publication of same.
42. Insofar as suit schedule URLs are concerned, defendant No. 2 has already brought on record in written statement that defendant No. 2 has actioned or taken down same and therefore defendant No. 2 does not object to reliefs sought by plaintiff insofar as a direction to defendant No. 2 to take down suit schedule URLs. But contention raised by defendant No. 2 is that insofar as republished, re- uploaded and re-shared social media posts are concerned, if any blanket direction is given to defendant No. 2, it would 33 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 amount to allowing plaintiff to be a judge in its own case and decide which social media posts and URLs have to be taken down.
43. In this regard, in Commercial Appeal 72 of 2025 emerging from present suit, Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in judgment dated 15-4-2025 at paragraph 4.1 has accepted the submission of Plaintiff herein to incorporate clarifications which were made by Delhi High Court in Facebook Inc. v. Surinder Malik and others reported in 2019 SCC Online Delhi 9887 and in said judgment, the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka has held at paragraph 5 as follows:
"5. In the aforesaid view, present appeals are disposed off by directing that impugned order passed by commercial court below shall operate subject to following observations and clarifications;
(i) Defendants are directed to take down, remove, block, restrict / disable access by domestic-level operators in Indian domain to all such videos/ weblinks/ URLs in list annexed 34 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 to plaint which have been uploaded from IP addresses within India.
(ii) Insofar as URLs/ links in list annexed to plaint which were uploaded from outside India are concerned, defendants are directed to block access and disable them from being viewed in Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access same.
(iii) Upon plaintiffs discovering that any further URLs contain defamatory/ offending content as discussed in present order, plaintiffs shall notify platforms which shall then take down / block access to said URLs either on global basis or for Indian domain depending on from where content has been uploaded in terms of (i) and
(ii) above.
(iv) If defendant - platforms upon receiving notice from plaintiffs are of opinion that material contained is not defamatory or violative, they shall intimate plaintiffs and 35 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 plaintiffs would seek their remedies in accordance with law."
44. Therefore, reliefs sought against defendant No. 2 have to be granted by this court in terms of above observations made by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka. Accordingly, under prayer (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 2 to take down, remove, block, restrict, disable access by domestic-level operators in Indian domain to all such videos, weblinks, URLs as mentioned in suit schedule which have been uploaded from IP addresses within India. Insofar as suit schedule URLs uploaded from outside India, mandatory injunction is granted directing defendant No. 2 to block access and disable them from being viewed in Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access same. In case of any URLs that may be discovered by plaintiff in future containing defamatory material which is subject matter of present suit, it is held that plaintiff is at liberty to notify defendant No. 2 which shall take down such URLs either on global basis or for Indian domain depending from where content has been 36 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 uploaded and in case defendant No. 2 is of opinion that URL / material / content notified by plaintiff is not defamatory or violative, Defendant No. 2 shall intimate same to plaintiff and it is for plaintiff to seek remedy in accordance with law.
45. Accordingly, I answer issue No. 3.
Issue No. 4 :-
46. Having answered issue No. 1 to 3 as above, I proceed to pass following :-
ORDER.
The suit is partly decreed, with cost. It is held that plaintiff is entitled to following reliefs;
i. Plaintiff is entitled to relief of permanent injunction as prayed under Prayer (a) restraining defendant No. 1 from directly or indirectly infringing registered trademarks of plaintiff or anything visually similar to any of its variants or using or depicting said trademarks or visually 37 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 similar mark or variants in any manner that may amount to infringement of same. ii. Plaintiff is entitled to permanent injunction as prayed under Prayer (b) restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing in any manner, in any medium, any content which is defamatory to plaintiff's products or registered trademarks or contains defamatory imputations in respect of plaintiff's registered trademarks or products.
iii. Under Prayer (c), plaintiff is entitled to injunction restraining defendant No. 1 from publishing in any manner, any content in any form defaming brand name of Aashirvaad atta of plaintiff or making any defamatory imputations against same. iv. Under Prayer (f) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to permanently remove, take down, 38 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 disable access and delete defamatory content contained in suit schedule URLs.
v. Under Prayer (j) defendant No. 1 is restrained by way of permanent injunction from publishing or communicating in any manner whatsoever any information that Aashirvaad atta is dangerous, has preservatives and emulsifiers and contains any harmful chemicals which can lead to diseases or that it contains bleaching agent or that it is made from low quality grains. However, this injunction is granted with rider that, this injunction will not prevent defendant No. 1 from making any formal representation or complaint to any government or other concerned regulatory agencies in respect of quality of plaintiff's products. And nor will this injunction prevent defendant No. 1 from taking any action before any law enforcement 39 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 agencies or before any court of law in respect of products of plaintiff. vi. Under Prayer (k) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing defendant No. 1 to publish unconditional written public apology to plaintiff for having made defamatory imputations in suit schedule URLs in any 1 English and 1 vernacular daily newspaper, having good circulation and Defendant No. 1 is also directed to publish said unconditional apology in social media accounts of defendant No. 1 with defendant No. 2.
vii. In respect of Prayer (L), plaintiff is held entitled to recover damages of Rs. 10 lakhs from defendant No. 1, in respect of false and defamatory content uploaded by defendant No. 1 against plaintiff and its products.
viii. Under prayer (d), (e), (g), (h), (i) plaintiff is entitled to mandatory injunction directing 40 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 defendant No. 2 to take down, remove, block, restrict, disable access by domestic- level operators in Indian domain to all such videos, weblinks, URLs as mentioned in suit schedule which have been uploaded from IP addresses within India. Insofar as suit schedule URLs uploaded from outside India, mandatory injunction is granted directing defendant No. 2 to block access and disable them from being viewed in Indian domain and ensure that users in India are unable to access same. In case of any URLs that may be discovered by plaintiff in future containing defamatory material which is subject matter of present suit, it is held that plaintiff is at liberty to notify defendant No. 2 which shall take down such URLs either on global basis or for Indian domain depending from where content has been uploaded and in case defendant No. 2 is of opinion that URL / 41 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 material / content notified by plaintiff is not defamatory or violative, Defendant No. 2 shall intimate same to plaintiff and it is for plaintiff to seek remedy in accordance with law.
Office to draw decree accordingly.
Office to issue soft copy of this
judgment to both sides by email if
furnished.
[Dictated using MacWhisper Pro 10.8.1, transcript revised, corrected, signed and then pronounced by me in open court on this the 02nd day of July, 2025] SUDINDRA Digitally signed by SUDINDRA NATH S NATH S Date: 2025.07.02 18:08:38 +0530 (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ADDL.CITY CIVIL AND SESSIONS JUDGE, COMMERCIAL COURT, BENGALURU ANNEXURE
1. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
PW1 : Sri. Raghavan Kalyanaraman Venkata
2. List of witnesses examined on behalf of Defendant/s:
Nil 42 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024
3. List of documents marked on behalf of Plaintiff/s:
Ex.P1 : Authorization letter in favour of PW-1 Ex.P2 : 65B certificate Ex.P3 : certificate copy of power of attorney dated 05.02.2018 along with plaint.
Ex.P4 : Certificate copy of Board Resolution Ex.P5 : CD containing defamatory content Ex.P6 : Print out of story board of defamatory content Ex.P7 : Original old packaging of plaintiff's Ashirvad Atta with multi grains along with photographic representation of same.
Ex.P8 : Original new packaging of plaintiff's Ashirvad Atta with multi grains along with photographic representation same.
Ex.P9 : Original packaging of plaintiff's Ashirvad superior MP Atta along with photographic representation of same Ex.P10 : Trade mark certificate for NO.2160766 Ex.P11 : Trade mark certificate for NO.2160767 Ex.P12 : Trade mark certificate for NO.3320940 Ex.P13 : Trade mark certificate for NO.3320941 Ex.P14 : Trade mark certificate for NO.672320 Ex.P15 : Trade mark certificate for NO.2627953 Ex.P16 : Trade mark certificate for NO.2628099 Ex.P17 : Trade mark certificate for NO.1092702 Ex.P18 : Test reports issued by FARELABS Ex.P19 : Original packaging of plaintiff's Ashirvad superior MP Atta of one KG with MRP of Rs.75 along with photographic representation of same Ex.P20 : Original packaging of plaintiff's Ashirvad Atta with multi grains of one KG with MRP of Rs.79 along with photographic representation of same 43 CT 1390_Com.O.S.No.629-2024_Judgment.doc KABC170012332024 Ex.P21 : Original invoices (4 numbers) Ex.P22 : 65B certificate Ex.P23 : Print out of e-mail Ex.P24 : Digital copy of certificate issued by NIQ Ex.P25 : 65-B certificate
4. List of documents marked on behalf of Defendant/s:
Nil (S. Sudindranath) LXXXIII ACC & SJ, (COMMERCIAL COURT), BENGALURU