The Calcutta High Court on 15 March directed AAP supporter YouTuber Dhruv Rathee to remove portions from a video that referred to the Real fruit juice brand of FMCG major Dabur. Dhruv Rathee had posted the video on YouTube on 13 February 2023 commenting on the claims of the health benefits of packaged fruit juices.
The court has asked him to remove all references to Real fruit juices from the video and has given 7 days to implement the order.
While Dhruv Rathee had masked the brand names while displaying packages of fruit juices, he had left other parts of the packaging clearly visible, and it was clear that he used images of Dabur’s Real fruit juice packages in the entire video, which landed him in legal trouble. The YouTuber also used advertisements of the brand, which was objected to by Dabur.
Two days after the video was published, Dabur had written to Rathee on 15 February, asking him to remove the video. However, he sent a reply on 17 February, refusing to remove the video, and went on to post it on Facebook on the next day. Following this, the company moved the Calcutta High Court seeking directions to remove the video.
According to the petition by Dabur, Rathee made unfair comparison between carbonated drinks and fruit juices, and also between packaged juices and fresh juices. The company said that the “overall impact of the impugned video is to generically disparage all packaged drinking fruit juices.”
The video claimed that consumption of packaged fruit juices is harmful as leads to type 2 diabetes, hair loss etc. Dhruv Rathee asked people not to consume packaged fruit juices and strongly recommended not to give packaged fruit juices to children.
Dabur further said that the “video makes a clear, direct and brazen reference to the products sold under the brand name ‘Real’.” The company noted that Rathee “deliberately and mischievously partially blurred the registered mark/logo “Real Fruit Power” and directly targeted the petitioner’s product thereby tarnishing its reputation.”
The plea added that he “also used slides in the impugned video from the petitioner’s promotional advertising videos which are easily relatable by the consumers at large to the product Real.”
The court agreed with the petition, and said that while Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, it is restricted only to a limited extent.
The court agreed with Dabur that although Rathee blurred the brand name “Real”, its identity was clear, and therefore the video directly targeted the brand, even though the video was on the overall category. “The impugned video shows an earlier advertisement which had been aired by the petitioner in respect of its product Real and also shows the petitioner’s product Real in a blurred manner. The product of the petitioner Real has been repeatedly targeted both overtly and covertly in the impugned video. Any consumer would understand that the product shown in the impugned video is that of the petitioner’s product Real,” the court said in the judgement.
The judgement further stated Dhruv Rathee violated section 29 (9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and the Copyright Act, 1957 by unauthorised use of packaging, label and logo of the product Real as it violates the trademark and copyright protection given to Dabur.
The court noted that even though the object of the video may not be objectionable, he crossed the “Lakshamanrekha or the Rubicon” by “making repeated direct and brazen references to the product Real”.
“In my view, the 5 petitioner’s product Real has been specifically targeted, denigrated and discredited in the impugned video,” the court of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur said, agreeing with Dabur.
The court said that Dhruv Rathee is permitted to air the video “only after removing the offending portions in the impugned video which makes any reference to the petitioner’s product Real and also not to make any use of the trademark, copyright content, trade dress, packaging label and logo of the petitioner’s Real brand of products.”
Giving 7 days to implement the order, the court said that if it is not done, the court will direct the social media platforms to block the video. The next date of hearing in the matter is 22 March 2023.
