Court’s decision
The Madras High Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining publication and continuation of a YouTube video that allegedly contained false, misleading, and disparaging statements against a proprietary commercial product. The Court held that while freedom of speech and expression is a fundamental right, it is not absolute and cannot be exercised to malign or disparage another’s product and business.
The Court found that a prima facie case had been made out and that balance of convenience and irreparable hardship clearly favoured the applicant. Accordingly, the Court directed removal of the impugned video from the online platform and issued notice to the respondents for further proceedings.
Facts
The applicant is a limited liability partnership engaged in the manufacture and supply of eco-friendly water treatment and conditioning systems used across domestic, industrial, and agricultural sectors. The applicant is the registered proprietor of the trademark “NANNIR” under Class 9 and has been actively protecting its intellectual property and commercial goodwill.
The applicant discovered that a video was uploaded on a YouTube channel reviewing its product. According to the applicant, the video contained false and misleading statements questioning the efficacy of the product, which created unwarranted doubts among consumers and adversely affected purchasing decisions, as reflected in public comments on the video.
Issues
The principal issue before the Court was whether publication of an online product review containing allegedly false and misleading statements amounted to commercial disparagement warranting injunctive relief.
A related issue was whether freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) could be invoked to justify statements that allegedly interfered with the applicant’s right to carry on lawful trade and business under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The applicant contended that the impugned video was published with malice and without any scientific or factual basis. It was argued that the statements made were reckless and had no supporting material, thereby misleading the public regarding the applicant’s product.
The applicant relied on judicial precedent to submit that commercial speech is subject to reasonable restrictions and cannot be used as a tool to malign or disparage another’s goods. It was argued that continued circulation of the video would cause irreparable injury to reputation, goodwill, and business prospects.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondents relied on the constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech and expression to justify publication of the video. It was contended that the video constituted a review and fell within permissible limits of expression.
The respondents suggested that criticism of products was part of public discourse and that injunctive relief would amount to curtailing free speech. They disputed the allegation of malice and asserted that the video reflected opinion rather than deliberate falsehood.
Analysis of the law
The Court examined the interplay between freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) and the right to trade and business under Article 19(1)(g). It reiterated that no fundamental right is absolute and that Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions on speech to protect social order and competing rights.
The Court emphasised that commercial speech enjoys constitutional protection, but such protection cannot be extended to speech that is false, misleading, or disparaging. Where speech crosses into the realm of injuring commercial reputation without factual basis, judicial intervention is warranted.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon the Bombay High Court judgment in Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali, which laid down the principles governing disparagement of goods. The precedent clarified that reckless statements made without caring for truth or falsity, and without supporting material, can amount to malicious disparagement.
The Court applied these principles to hold that misleading online content affecting consumer perception and market confidence cannot be protected under the guise of free speech.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that the applicant had established a prima facie case of commercial disparagement. It held that the impugned video had the potential to mislead consumers and directly interfere with the applicant’s fundamental right to carry on business.
The Court concluded that balance of convenience lay in favour of the applicant and that refusal of interim relief would result in irreparable loss. Consequently, the Court granted interim injunction and directed the online platform to remove the impugned video forthwith.
Conclusion
The Madras High Court granted interim protection to the applicant against online commercial disparagement. The order affirms that freedom of speech does not extend to dissemination of misleading or false statements that harm another’s business and reputation.
By directing removal of the impugned video, the Court ensured immediate protection of commercial goodwill pending adjudication of the dispute on merits.
Implications
This decision has significant implications for digital content creators and online reviewers. It reinforces that product reviews must be grounded in truth and factual material, particularly when they have the potential to affect consumer behaviour and market standing.
The ruling strengthens judicial oversight over online commercial disparagement and underscores that constitutional freedoms cannot be misused to undermine lawful business activities.