Gold winner case Justice R.N Manjula observed that “it is understandable from the conduct of the plaintiff that his intention is mainly to stop the defendant from further transmitting the content to damage the plaintiff’s brand. However, the fact that the plaintiff has spent a sizeable amount to file the suit due to the reckless action of the defendant. Considering all these factors, I feel the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable damage of Rs.7,00,000/- from the defendant”.

[9/30, 22:16] sekarreporter1: “

Finding that the plaintiff has proved all the essential elements that should be proved in a case for defamation and his intention is mainly to stop the defendant from further transmitting the content to damage the plaintiff’s brand, the Madras High Court granted permanent injunction and disposed off the suit by awarding costs of seven lacs in respect to relief of damages.
The High Court held so while considering a civil suit filed for seeking a relief of recovery of a sum of Rupees one crore from the defendant along with interest from the date of plaint till the date of payment, towards the damages and compensation to the plaintiff and to grant permanent injunction, restraining the defendant and their men and agents from in any manner making, uploading, writing, printing, publishing, broadcasting, distributing or disseminating in print media or electronic media or Internet media or any form whatsoever any defamatory material, statements, continuing in uploading, publishing including the purported/video/audio any material or statement, and to remove/ delete the false and defamatory video /audio in all platforms relating to or arising from relate to the plaintiff’s brand which is affecting and damaging the name and reputation of plaintiff’s brand in any manner.

A Single Judge Bench of Justice R.N Manjula observed that “it is understandable from the conduct of the plaintiff that his intention is mainly to stop the defendant from further transmitting the content to damage the plaintiff’s brand. However, the fact that the plaintiff has spent a sizeable amount to file the suit due to the reckless action of the defendant. Considering all these factors, I feel the plaintiff is entitled to recover a reasonable damage of Rs.7,00,000/- from the defendant”.

Advocate Vijayan Subramanian appeared for the Plaintiff, whereas the Defendant appeared Ex-parte.

The brief facts of the case were that the plaintiff is a leading market leader in the refined sunflower oil (RSO) and edible oil sector. He has been marking the product with its brand by name ‘Gold Winner’ over 30 years from 1993. The plaintiff manufactures and packs various edible oils such as sunflower oil, groundnut oil, palm oil, olive oil, blended oil with its well-known trade mark namely ‘Gold Winner’. The plaintiff has also filed an application for registration of trade mark for other edible oil products. On the other hand, the defendant is a self-proclaimed social media influencer having approximately 3,35,000 subscribers for his YoutTube account and posts various videos by criticizing certain top brands by giving review about quality of the products and bringing negative attention on popular brands.

In the year 2023, the defendant posted a video where he compared two different quantity range of ‘Gold Winner’ and alleged that one litre pocket of oil consists of only 7 pockets of 100 ml and claimed that one litre ‘Gold Winner’ oil is selling 300 ml less and the consumers got only 700 ml of oil, despite they paid the price for 1 litre oil. The defendant therefore, made a conscious attempt to defame the product and he misled his viewers. The plaintiff therefore filed suit for recovery of damages of Rs.1 Crore from the defendant along with permanent injunction for restraining the defendant and their men and agents from in any manner publishing any defamatory material against the plaintiff’s brand. The defendant was however, set ex-parte.

After considering the submission, the Bench found that plaintiff’s product is in the market for 30 years and its factories have also registered their trade mark and fought against several competitors who had tried to imitate their trade mark to pass their products.

Therefore, the Bench pointed that the defendant’s action to disparage the plaintiff’s product in a misleading manner would no doubt invite negative attention from the viewers and that will influence them to switch-over to some other products.

So, the defendant’s action appears to be with an intention to cause defame and damage the plaintiff’s product,
[9/30, 22:17] sekarreporter1: 👍