Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

a) unrefned; b) unbleached c) non-hydrogenated d) non-deodorized e) without solvents and (f) retains all its natural nutrients; that the Plaintiffs product - edible coconut oil bearing the mark PARACHUTE enjoys immense reputation and goodwill amongst the general public; that in the Indian market, the Plaintif is the market leader in the category of edible coconut oils and holds 46.7% of the market share in respect of the same.

2.1 The Defendant is a "YouTuber" / "V-Blogger" who has his own channel titled "Bearded Chokra" on the popular website www.youtube.com. On his channel, the Defendant who claims to have a Masters degree in Bio-Technology from the Mumbai University, produces and uploads videos wherein he reviews products of various manufacturers. On or about 1st September 2018, the Defendant published a video titled "Is Parachute Coconut Oil 100% Pure?". In this video, the Defendant reviewed the Plaintiffs PARACHUTE coconut oil. According to the Plaintif, in or about last week of January 2019, the Plaintif came across the Impugned video published by the Defendant. It is the Plaintiffs case that in the Impugned Video the Defendant makes claims and statements with regard to the Plaintiffs PARACHUTE edible coconut Oil, which are false and unsubstantiated. The Plaintif states that as a whole, the Impugned Video is disparaging and denigrating in nature. 2.2 The Plaintif through its Advocates sent an email dated 28 th January 2019 to the Defendant whereby the Defendant was called upon to cease and desist from publishing or in any manner communicating the Impugned Video to the public and calling upon him to remove the Impugned Video from social media sites including his YouTube channel. On 29th January 2019, the Defendant replied to the Plaintiffs Advocatesf email inter alia defending his video and also proposed to re-make / modify and / or delete portions of the Impugned Video subject to certain conditions stated therein. On 30th January 2019, the Defendant sent another email to the Plaintiffs Advocates stating that he is expecting a response from the Plaintif. On 30th January 2019, the Plaintif, through its Advocates, replied with a holding email stating that the contents of the Defendantfs emails were being considered by the Plaintif and called upon the Defendant to remove the Impugned Video in the meantime. Vide his email dated 31 st January 2019, the Defendant refused to comply with the aforesaid request of the Plaintif stating that he had a right to voice his opinion. On 11th February 2019, the Plaintif fled the present suit and on 13 th February 2019, the Plaintif made an application for urgent ad-interim reliefs. The Defendant fled its Afdavit in Reply; the Plaintif fled its Afdavit in Rejoinder; and the Defendant fled a Supplementary Afdavit in Reply. Since the pleadings in the matter were complete, by consent of both the sides, this Court took up the Notice of Motion for fnal hearing.

2009 SCC Online Del 3940 5.1 The Ld. Advocate for the Defendant submitted that the statements made by the Defendant in his Impugned Video are true and constitute his bonafde opinion. 5.2 The Ld. Advocate for the Defendant also submitted that the Defendantfs ofer to delete some portions of his video, in his reply to the Plaintiffs cease and desist notice, was a concession / good faith attempt made to fnally settle the matter, not an admission of wrongdoing. Relying upon this Courtfs judgment in Dilip Kumar vs. New India Assurance3 he submitted that this Court had therein explained the diference between a "concession" made in the course of good faith negotiations and an "admission". He also relied upon the Supreme Courtfs judgment in Management of the Consolidated Cofee Estates vs. Workmen4. He submitted that a concession made in the course of trying to settle a matter can never be considered to be an admission. He submitted that the Defendantfs email was not an unconditional admission, but only a concession made in order to settle the dispute. 5.3 The Ld. Advocate for the Defendant submitted that the honesty of the Defendant in making such videos is evident from the communication exchanged between one company viz. Qraa and himself. He submitted that the email correspondence between the Defendant and Qraa establishes that the Defendant is not in the business of taking money from Companies for endorsing their products / brands and of merely becoming their mouthpiece. He submitted that this shows that the statements made by the Defendant in the Impugned Video were not made at the behest of a competitor. He submitted that the Defendantfs bank statement for the year 2018 annexed to his Supplementary Afdavit shows that the Defendant had received a (2014) SCC Online Bom 759 (1970) 2 LLJ 576 sum of Rs. 4,000/- on 19th February 2018 from Qraa and that he refunded the said sum to Qraa on 26th March 2018.

20.4 In his email dated 29th January 2019 in reply to the Plaintiffs cease and desist notice, the Defendant stated that the statements made by him in his Impugned Video constituted his personal opinion; however, he did not refer to any research or any other material even in this email. The literature does not support the test purported by the Defendant and thus would be of no assistance to the Defendant. 20.5 Interestingly, the Ld. Senior Advocate for the Plaintif has produced an article titled "Coconut Oil: Not a cure for anything" dated 9 th July 2015 from an internet blog titled "The Worst Things for Sale" which refers to the said Dr. Bruce Fife as a "SCAMLORD" and states that the uses of coconut oil prescribed by him in the book "The Coconut Oil Miracle" (which is the same book shown in the credential documents produced by the Defendant) are incorrect. I am in agreement with the submission that not all material available on the internet is reliable and hence such material cannot by itself constitute research or due diligence to justify the denigrating statements in the Impugned Video.