False Disparaging Online Reviews About Product Restricts Company's Freedom To Carry On Trade : Madras High Court Grants Interim Relief To Water Purifier Company Against YouTuber
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Madras, Single Bench of Justice N Senthilkumar has granted interim relief to a water purifier company by restraining a YouTube content creator from uploading or circulating videos containing disparaging and defamatory statements about the company’s water treatment product, and by directing the video platform to take down the impugned content. The case concerns allegations that the online review and related comments adversely affected the company’s business by casting doubt on the efficacy of its product. Justice Senthilkumar observed that such false statements would operate as an unreasonable restriction on the company’s constitutionally protected freedom to carry on trade under Article 19(1)(g), and held that a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm justified the interim injunction.
The applicant, Nannir Water Source LLP, is a firm registered on 29.12.2021 and is engaged in manufacturing machinery and equipment relating to water treatment and conditioning systems. Their products address issues such as hard water, high total dissolved solids, saline water, scale formation and water quality across domestic, industrial and agricultural sectors. The firm stated that its product is eco-friendly, electricity-free, and requires minimal maintenance. It also asserted that it owns the registered trademark “NANNIR”, through Application No.5354209 filed on 03.03.2022 and granted registration under Certificate No.3169775 dated 01.03.2023.
According to the applicant, on 25.05.2025 the first respondent published a YouTube video on his channel “Buying Facts,” purportedly reviewing the applicant’s product. The applicant claimed that the video contained malicious and misleading statements that created unwarranted doubts regarding the efficacy of its product, causing hesitation among consumers. The applicant produced viewer comments on the video as indicative of the alleged adverse impact.
To support its contention, the applicant relied on a Bombay High Court judgment in Marico Limited vs. Abhijeet Bhansali (15.01.2020), asserting that fundamental rights under Article 19(1)(a) do not permit individuals to malign or disparage another’s product. The applicant further invoked Article 19(1)(g), contending that the video interfered with its right to carry on trade.
The Court recorded the applicant’s assertion that the trademark “NANNIR” had been validly registered and that the product was designed to treat issues of hardness, total dissolved solids and saline water across multiple sectors. It noted the applicant’s submission that the video uploaded by the first respondent contained “malicious and misleading statements” that created “unwarranted doubts in the minds of the public” regarding the applicant’s product, leading consumers to hesitate in purchasing it, a fact the applicant stated was “evident from the comments of the impugned video.”
The Court recorded the applicant’s reliance on the Bombay High Court judgment in Marico Limited vs. Abhijeet Bhansali, quoting: “I am of the opinion that the Defendant had no reason to believe that the statements he was making were the truth… The Impugned Video made by the Defendant therefore reeks of malice…”
The applicant argued that freedom of speech under Article 19(1)(a) is not absolute and that Article 19(2) permits reasonable restrictions. The Court noted the argument that although commercial speech forms part of Article 19(1)(a), “it cannot be that the fundamental right so guaranteed… can be abused by any individual by maligning or disparaging the product of others.”
The Court further recorded the submission that the applicant’s right under Article 19(1)(g) was affected by “false, misleading and disparaging statements” published in the video, which allegedly interfered with its lawful trade. It took note of the applicant’s plea that failure to grant interim relief would result in “irreparable loss and hardship.”
In assessing the material placed, the Court recorded that the first respondent’s act of publishing alleged false statements “would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade of the applicant” and that such conduct “would not only injure the applicant’s reputation and goodwill, but also would adversely affect the applicant’s business prospects and commercial standing in the market.”
The Court stated that the applicant had made out a prima facie case, and that the “balance of convenience and irreparable hardship” had been established in its favour. It further stated that the applicant “would be put to irreparable loss, if interim injunction is not granted.”
The Court directed: “Accordingly, there shall be an order of interim injunction as prayed for in O.A. Nos.1107 & 1108 of 2025. Notice to the respondents returnable by 17.12.2025. Order XXXIX Rule 3 of C.P.C. to be complied with. Post the matter on 17.12.2025. The third respondent is directed to remove the video with regard to the applicant, which is now available in their platform.”
Advocates Representing The Parties
For the Applicant: Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy
Case Title: Nannir Water Source LLP v. Syed Imran and Others
Case Number: O.A. Nos.1107 & 1108 of 2025 & A.No.5922 of 2025 in C.S. (Comm.Div.) No.302 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Senthilkumar
