The Delhi High Court issued the summons in a suit by the owner of Amul trademark, GCMMF. The video used Amul’s trademark while showing torture and cruelty to cows. (GCMMF vs Nitin Jain & Ors).
The Plaintiff filed a suit against the video, “Unholy Cattle of India: Exposing Cruelty in the Indian Dairy Industry”. The video was uploaded by one Nitin Jain. He was the proprietor of Bengaluru Brigade for Animals Liberation. The uploader concerned had already undertaken to remove all references. This was with reference to the ones made to the Plaintiff and its products in the video. The suit was filed through Advocate Abhishek Singh. Plaintiff also pursued a separate suit against another defamatory video. Senior Advocate Chetan Sharma with others appeared for the Plaintiff. Senior Advocate Raj Panjawani appeared for the uploader. Advocates Neel Mason, Ridhima Pabbi, and others represented YouTube.
Plaintiff apprehended that the disparaging and defamatory video was borne out of propaganda. The video was defamatory and slanderous and this was a major contention of Plaintiff. It spread false narratives and information on Amul products. The Plaintiff’s grievance was that the video targeted and referred to Amul products. It spoke about the “ill-treatment” of cattle, asking the public to discard the intake of milk and dairy products to prevent it.
It was contended that the viewers were misled to believe that Plaintiff is inflicting cruelty as shown in the video. The Plaintiff submitted that it was the largest cooperative society in India & distributed its profits back to the farmer. It also contributed to the development of not only individual members but also the entire village community. A significant percentage of the market was held by Plaintiff. It gathered more than 80 lakh kg milk around 11,000 village milk cooperative societies and more. On a regular basis, thirty-six lakh farmers contribute to the supply as well. Plaintiff clarified that the dairy animals in total were in the care and shelter of the farmers who were members. They were not subjected to any sort of cruelty. The allegations were misleading, frivolous, and baseless. The video greatly affected Plaintiff’s goodwill. It also injured its unbridled reputation.
The uploader claimed that the ‘AMUL’ trademark was not used for commercial purposes.
A single-judge Bench of Justice Mukta Gupta was set up. The uploader was asked to show on affidavit, how Plaintiff indulged in cruelty to cows and why the Amul mascot was used in the video. The court asked the uploader if he had made any profits out of the videos. The videos have been available to the public since 2018. Thus, the Court held it appropriate to not pass any ad interim injunction temporarily till the uploader replies. YouTube and Facebook’s responseS were also sought.
The matter would be heard next on April 26, 2021.
Libertatem.in is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgments from the Court. Follow us on Google News, Instagram, LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe to our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.