India – Navigating Intellectual Property And Free Speech.
After nearly a year of litigation, a dispute between Dabur India Limited (‘Dabur’) and YouTuber Dhruv Rathee reached a resolution on June 18. Dabur had filed a lawsuit to protect its intellectual property rights against a YouTube video by Dhruv Rathee referencing ‘Real’, one of Dabur’s products. The case was settled before a Single Judge Bench presided over by Justice Krishna Rao, who approved an agreement between the parties. The settlement included the removal of all ‘Real’ trademarks, copyrighted content, labels, packaging, and advertisements from the contested video. Additionally, Dhruv Rathee agreed to blur the packaging of Dabur’s Real fruit juice in his future videos.
Brief Facts
On February 14, 2023, Rathee published a video analysing the health benefits of packaged fruit juice products. In response, Dabur swiftly filed a petition with the High Court, alleging that Rathee’s video ‘disparaged’ its product and unfairly compared soft drinks to ready-to-serve fruit juices, potentially discouraging consumers from choosing the latter. Dabur also claimed that Rathee used excerpts from their advertisements and intentionally obscured their registered mark/logo, ‘Real Fruit Power’, causing reputational harm. Despite Dabur’s request to remove the video, Rathee declined.
On March 15, 2023, the Court determined that Dabur’s product ‘Real’ was specifically targeted, denigrated, and discredited in the disputed video, establishing a strong prima facie case on its merits. Consequently, the Court ordered Dhruv Rathee to only repost the video after removing all references to Dabur’s product ‘Real’ and refrain from using the trademark, copyrighted content, trade dress, packaging label, and logo associated with the ‘Real’ brand.
By an order dated February 29, 2024, the Court suggested that the parties resolve the disputes in the suit by blurring or removing fruit juice packets alleged to resemble Dabur’s products. In response, Dhruv Rathee proposed via email on March 15, 2024, to blur or use generic fruit juice packaging, asserting his rights to freedom of speech, expression, and fair comment. Dabur accepted this proposal in principle, as conveyed in their email dated March 19, 2024. Subsequently, Dhruv Rathee submitted a video featuring the proposed generic fruit juice packaging on June 12, 2024, to replace the packaging deemed similar to Dabur’s. Dabur agreed that these changes should be implemented throughout the contested video, ensuring the removal of any references to ‘Real’ trademarks, copyrighted content, labels, packaging, or advertisements.
Understanding the Conflict and Nuances
In the video of the defendant, the video unfairly compares carbonated soft drinks with ready-to-serve (RTS) fruit beverages. Also, it contrasts fresh fruit juices unfavourably with RTS fruit beverages. Its overall effect is to broadly criticise all packaged fruit juices. Additionally, the video suggests that consuming packaged fruit juices may contribute to type 2 diabetes and could lead to hair loss and other health issues. It advises against consuming these juices and strongly recommends against giving them to children. Furthermore, it directly references products sold under the brand name ‘Real’ owned by Dabur.
This case raises questions about copyright, fair use, and trademark law’s intersection with freedom of speech and expression. In the order dated March 15, the Court observed that Article 19(1) of the Indian Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including disseminating information through any medium or platform. Emphasising the importance of consumer access to information, the Court acknowledged this right within constitutional bounds. However, the judge also highlighted the limitations on this freedom under Article 19(2), particularly in cases where the legality of published information is contested. The judgment underscored the need to balance the consumer’s right to information against a manufacturer’s right not to be unfairly criticised or ridiculed.
Decision of the Court
The Court observed that Dhruv Rathee had consented to universally removing any mention or use of ‘Real’ as previously stated in the impugned video. Additionally, he raised no objections to the video being uploaded, published, and/or broadcasted with these modifications. Furthermore, both parties agreed that maintaining the lawsuit and related applications pending would not be beneficial, leading the Court to dismiss the case based on the settlement mutually agreed upon by Dhruv Rathee and Dabur.
Analysis
Under Section 52(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, using copyrighted material for research, criticism, review, or reporting current events is not considered infringement. The controversy sparked the question of whether the defendant’s video could be a research-based review or criticism, an analysis of health claims made by companies selling packaged fruit juices, or a journalistic report video.
The Court tried to balance the intention of an individual and the power of multinational companies; in a previous hearing dated April 03, 2023, the Calcutta High Court expressed dissatisfaction with Dabur India’s efforts to remove all URLs of a video by YouTuber Dhruv Rathee concerning Real fruit juice. Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur emphasised to Dabur that the Court would require evidence of Rathee’s malicious intent before issuing such an order. This underscores the Court’s impartiality, indicating a commitment to safeguarding freedom of expression rather than automatically favouring large corporations. The Court’s position reflects a balanced approach, ensuring that individuals are not unfairly silenced. The bench asserted, “I cannot permit a multinational corporation to pursue such a case against an individual,” clearly affirming its stance.
Another aspect to be noted here is that the case was filed for trademark and copyright infringement and not for defamation. Where the defences could be truth, fair comment, or true report, in the present case of infringement, there could be no such defences except fair use.
Conclusion
This case is a missed attempt to interpret the infringement of copyright and discuss the ambit of freedom of speech and expression vis a vis Copyright and Trademark laws in a deeper sense and providing a clearer balance, especially in today’s world where content creators are on the rise and is becoming one of the primary sources of disseminating information in public. This case prompts us to reconsider the delicate balance between safeguarding intellectual property rights and preserving the freedoms of speech and access to information. When it comes to FMCG products, it comes to advertising regulations, whether these companies are disseminating the correct information about their products or not.
This case prompts a deeper exploration of how copyright, trademark, and advertising laws can harmonise with constitutional protections of free speech, fostering an environment where innovation and expression can thrive while safeguarding corporate interests responsibly.
Ultimately, the Dabur vs. Dhruv Rathee case invites ongoing dialogue on how to navigate these challenges, striking a balance that promotes creativity, transparency, and informed consumer choice in the digital age.
