Isabella Mariam

The High Court of Delhi, Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia restrained a social media content creator from publishing or circulating a video that disparaged a liquor manufacturer’s registered product by implying it was “poisonous” and “unfit for consumption.” The Court held that the impugned video, posted on YouTube and Instagram, made unsubstantiated allegations that harmed the product’s goodwill and infringed the manufacturer’s trademark rights. It directed the content creator to remove the video within 24 hours and ordered the platform operator to disable access if non-compliance occurred, while requiring disclosure of the uploader’s basic subscriber information.

The plaintiff, Indospirit Beverages Private Limited, approached the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim relief against the defendants—Google LLC and a YouTube content creator identified as Defendant No. 2, who operates the channel "Sipp_Smart" on YouTube and Instagram. The company contended that the defendant published a video titled "B Code Exposed!!" which, though omitting a few letters, directly referred to its product "BROCODE." The video described the beverage as "poisonous," claimed it could cause hospitalization, and warned viewers to avoid it. The plaintiff argued that the video contained unverified, false, and misleading statements damaging to its reputation.

Also Read: Supreme Court: For a Valid Oral Gift (Hiba) under Mohammedan Law, Proof of Public Possession Is Essential; Absence of Mutation Raises Doubt over Ownership Claims

Indospirit, represented through counsel Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Aditya Ganju, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Jaiswal, Mr. Samanyu Sethi, and Mr. Sahil Safdar, stated that it is one of India’s leading manufacturers of alcoholic beverages and the owner of registered trademarks for "BROCODE" under Classes 32 and 33. The company stated that its products adhere to statutory standards and hold certifications from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS).

According to the plaintiff, Defendant No. 2 falsely alleged in the video that ethyl alcohol was directly mixed with grape juice, describing the composition as lethal and unfit for human consumption. The plaintiff argued that the video misled consumers and equated its product to a toxic substance, amounting to defamation and disparagement. It further submitted laboratory test certificates confirming the beverage's compliance with Indian safety standards.

The plaintiff asserted that Defendant No. 2’s actions were intended to tarnish the product’s reputation and disrupt consumer confidence. Counsel for Google LLC (Defendant No. 1), represented by Mr. Aditya Gupta, submitted that as an intermediary, the company would comply with any court order to remove the content if the primary defendant failed to do so within the prescribed time.

The order stated: "The documentary evidence including test reports and regulatory clearances from FSSAI and BIS prima facie establish compliance with standards for safety and quality of the plaintiff’s product 'BROCODE'."

The Court referred to the impugned video wherein the creator described the beverage as "poisonous," "deadly," and "not fit for consumption." It held that "The Impugned Video published by Defendant No. 2 makes unsubstantiated allegations about the Plaintiff’s Product 'BROCODE' portraying it as 'poisonous, deadly and not fit for consumption.'" Justice Karia observed that such statements, even while partially disguising the brand name, could mislead consumers and directly harm the plaintiff’s goodwill and brand recognition.

It was further recorded that "Defendant No. 2’s references to the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark 'BROCODE' combined with suggestive statements and partial disguising of the brand name, target the Plaintiff’s Product 'BROCODE'."

In its reasoning, the Court stated that "The actions attributed to Defendant No. 2 are detrimental to the distinctive character of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark 'BROCODE', considering the fact that the same is deployed for disparagement of a legitimate, lawfully marketed product." It further noted that the continuation of such content online would cause "irreparable injury to the Plaintiff’s brand, market standing, and consumer trust," thereby satisfying the requirement for injunctive relief.

Justice Karia added that commercial speech, while protected, could not extend to false or malicious content aimed at damaging the reputation of a legitimate business. The order observed that Defendant No. 2’s statements lacked factual foundation and amounted to negative commercial speech that could mislead the public about the safety and legality of the plaintiff’s product. The Court found that the balance of convenience clearly lay with the plaintiff and that maintaining the video online would cause disproportionate harm.

The High Court restrained Defendant No. 2 and its agents "from publishing, circulating, uploading or otherwise disseminating on various social media platforms, including but not limited to its YouTube channel, the Impugned Video available at: https://www.youtube.com/shorts/R44LARAfs4w or any part thereof, or any other video in any language or in any manner, disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and its Product 'BROCODE' and also causing infringement of the Plaintiff’s Trade Mark 'BROCODE'."

The Court directed that Defendant No. 2 "within 24 hours of receiving the Notice, shall take down, remove, and disable access to the Impugned Video... or any other video in any language or in any manner, disparaging the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff and its Product 'BROCODE'." It further ordered that if the creator failed to comply, Google LLC "within 72 hours of receiving the communication from the Plaintiff that Defendant No. 2 has failed to take down as per direction above, shall take down, remove, and disable access to the Impugned Video."

Also Read: Charitable Trust Trustee’s Execution Plea Dismissed as Court Finds No Executable Decree in Settlement; Mere Withdrawal of Suit After Compromise Not Enforceable : Delhi High Court

The Court also directed Google LLC to provide "in a sealed cover / password-protected document, all the Basic Subscriber Information available with it in relation to Defendant No. 2, including the full name, registered email address, contact number, residential or business address, IP logs, registration details, and any other identification or Know Your Customer particulars, as may be available in its regards, within 7 days of receipt of Notice." The plaintiff was granted liberty to notify Google LLC if Defendant No. 2 or its representatives uploaded any identical or substantially similar content in the future. Upon such notification, the platform must remove the video within 72 hours unless it reasonably determines that the content is dissimilar, in which case the plaintiff may seek further orders from the Court.

The Court directed that replies to the interim application be filed within four weeks, with rejoinders before the next date of hearing, fixed for February 4, 2026. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure was to be completed within two weeks.

Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Ankur Sangal, Mr. Aditya Ganju, Mr. Ankit Arvind, Ms. Shilpi Sinha, Ms. Priyanka Jaiswal, Mr. Samanyu Sethi, and Mr. Sahil Safdar, Advocates.
For the Defendants: Mr. Aditya Gupta, Advocate for Defendant No. 1.

Case Title: Indospirit Beverages Private Limited v. Google LLC & Anr.
Case Number: CS (COMM) 1037/2025
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia