The Delhi High Court directed a YouTube channel operated by influencer Praveen Aminigadda, known as “Sipp_Smart,” to refrain from publishing or circulating a video disparaging the alcoholic beverage brand “BROCODE.” The interim injunction was passed in a suit filed by Indospirit Beverages Pvt. Ltd., the manufacturer of BROCODE, restraining the influencer from making unsubstantiated claims that the product is “poisonous,” “deadly,” and unfit for consumption. The court also instructed the influencer to take down the disputed video and ordered Google, the operator of YouTube, to remove the content if the influencer fails to comply.
The plaintiff contended that the video used a slightly altered version of the brand name—“B-CODE”—while making aggressive claims urging viewers to avoid the product. The complaint included evidence showing that viewers in the comments identified the product as BROCODE, confirming the linkage. The plaintiff argued that the video directly harmed the brand’s goodwill and reputation, unfairly denigrating a legally marketed product.
The Court found that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case. Records included test reports, regulatory clearances from FSSAI and BIS, and quality assurance documents demonstrating that BROCODE complied with safety and regulatory standards. The Court observed that the influencer’s categorical exhortations against the product, combined with suggestive statements referencing the trademark, caused direct injury to the brand’s reputation and risked undermining the distinctiveness of the mark.
Accordingly, the court restrained the influencer, his agents, and representatives from uploading or disseminating the impugned video or any content in any language that disparages BROCODE. The court also allowed the plaintiff to notify YouTube with the exact URLs of any re-uploads and mandated that the platform take action within 72 hours. If the notified content is found to be non-identical to the impugned video, YouTube must inform the plaintiff, who may approach the court for further directions.
This order highlights the balance courts seek to maintain between freedom of expression and protection of commercial reputation. The High Court’s intervention illustrates that unsubstantiated and denigratory content targeting a brand may be restrained to prevent irreparable injury to its goodwill, especially in the context of mass media and digital platforms.
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.