Youtuber Making Disparaging Claims About A Company's Products Restricts Their Freedom Of Trade, Adversely Affects Business Prospects: Madras High Court

The Madras High Court while granting relief to a water purifier company by restricting a Youtuber from making videos, has held that such videos with defamatory and disparaging claims restricts the company's freedom of trade and affects their business prospects.

The Court was considering an Application seeking take down of a YouTube video reviewing the products of the company and allegedly making "malicious and misleading statements".

The Bench of Justice N Senthil Kumar held, "Since the first respondent’s act of publishing false statements would amount to an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of trade of the applicant and the same is also violative of the constitutional rights guaranteed under Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and the first respondent’s defamatory and disparaging 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 and therefore, the same have to be protected."

The Applicant was represented by Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy.

Facts of the Case

The contention of the Applicant/ Plaintiff was that they are the firm registered with the Registrar of Companies in 2021. They are engaged in the manufacture of machinery and equipment and they are dealing with developing, manufacturing, supplying, installing and servicing water treatment/conditioning systems, including but not limited to devices based on technologies which address the issues of hard water, high total dissolved solids, saline water, scale formation and water quality in various sectors, such as domestic, industrial, agricultural etc. According to them, their product is eco-friendly, electricity-free, requires minimal maintenance. They have been proactive in protecting their intellectual property rights over the said product and being the proprietor of the trade mark ‘NANNIR’, they have filed Trade Mark Application under Class 9 and the said mark is granted registration.

Counsel for the Applicant submitted that the Applicant/ Plaintiff came to know of the video published by the first respondent on YouTube, the third respondent on May 25, 2025, in the first respondent’s channel ‘Buying Facts’ in which the first respondent purported to review the Applicant’s product. The malicious and misleading statements made by the first respondent have created unwarranted doubts in the minds of the public regarding the efficacy of the Applicant’s product, thereby causing consumers to hesitate in purchasing the same, which is evident from the comments of the impugned video.

The Counsel argued that while it is necessary to maintain and preserve the freedom of speech and expression, it is equally necessary to have some restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression for the maintenance of social order in democracy.

He further submitted that the Applicant’s right to carry on their lawful trade and business is protected under Article19(1)(g) of the  Constitution of India and the false, misleading and diaparaging statements published by the first respondent in the impugned video directly interfere with and obstruct the fundamental right of the Applicant.

Reasoning By Court

The Court agreed with the Counsel for the Applicant that if interim injunction is not granted to the Applicant, they will be put to irreparable loss and hardship.

"Since the applicant/plaintiff has made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience and irreparable hardship have also been established, this Court is of the view that the applicant/plaintiff would be put to irreparable loss, if interim injunction is not granted", the Court ruled.

The Application was accordingly allowed.

Cause Title: Nannir Water Source LLP v. Syed Imran and others

Click here to read/ download Order