Juice Wars: Dabur’s Trademark Case Against Dhruv Rathee

In the recent case of Dabur India Limited v. Dhruv Rathee[1], the Calcutta High Court addressed significant issues surrounding trademark infringement and freedom of speech. The case was settled on the basis of an agreement reached between the parties. As part of the settlement, all 'Real' trademarks, copyrighted content, labels, packaging, and advertisements were removed from the disputed video.

Facts:

In the case of Dabur India Limited v. Dhruv Rathee, a prominent YouTuber, Dhruv Rathee, found himself embroiled in a legal battle against Dabur India over a video in which he critiqued Dabur’s "Real" packaged fruit juice. Dabur approached the Calcutta High Court, alleging that Rathee's video constituted disparagement of their "Real" fruit juice brand. Dabur holds registered trademarks for “REAL,” “REAL FRUIT POWER,” and related marks in class 32, investing significantly in advertising to build substantial goodwill. Dabur's primary contention was that Rathee's video made unfair comparisons between carbonated drinks and "ready to serve" (RTS) fruit beverages, thereby causing a generic disparagement of all packaged drinking fruit juices. The video suggested health risks like type 2 diabetes and hair loss from consuming packaged juices and advised against giving them to children. Dabur alleged that the video made unfair and misleading comparisons, directly targeting their "Real" products by partially blurring the branding but still making them recognizable. The company argued that this could confuse consumers, damage their reputation, and constituted copyright infringement by using segments from their promotional material without authorization.

Issues:

1. Whether Rathee's video infringed on Dabur's trademark and copyright.

2. Whether the video constituted disparagement of Dabur's products.

3. How to balance freedom of speech with protection of intellectual property rights.

Rules and the Court’s Analysis:

The Calcutta High Court issued an interim order directing Rathee to remove the allegedly disparaging parts of his video. The Court's rationale was that the video violated Section 29(9) of the Trademarks Act and appeared to target the "Real" brand specifically. Subsequently, on March 24, 2023[2], the Court ordered YouTube to take down the video entirely, emphasizing that the dissemination of information must be legal and align with the limitations set forth in Article 19(2) of the Indian Constitution, which restricts the freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a).

Dabur argued that the video caused confusion and deception among consumers by using blurred visuals of the "Real" product and its advertisements. The Court, relying on Section 29(9) of the Trademarks Act, concluded that the unauthorized use of the "Real" packaging, label, and logo in the video constituted trademark infringement. The interpretation of Section 29(9) was informed by the Delhi High Court's precedent in Hamdard National Foundation v. Hussain Dalal[3], which held that spoken words causing confusion and deception or diluting a trademark's distinctive character constitute infringement, regardless of intent to defame.

Rathee countered that his video was an expression of opinion backed by facts, referencing the ingredients of "Real" fruit juice and discussing their health implications. He argued that opinions should not form the basis for defamation or disparagement claims. Critics of the Calcutta High Court's decision pointed out that the Court did not conduct a thorough inquiry to distinguish between factual statements and opinions in Rathee's video, thereby failing to ensure due process and fairness. Additionally, the Court did not specifically identify the distinctive character in the video that was allegedly infringed upon, nor did it pinpoint the exact portions of the video where trademark violations occurred.

The Court also overlooked Section 30(1) of the Trademarks Act, which states that honest use of a mark without taking unfair advantage or denigrating it does not constitute infringement. Even though a prima facie case for disparagement could be made through a combined reading of Sections 29(9) and 30(1), it was notable that the video did not explicitly mention "Dabur" or "Real," and Dabur admitted that the mark was shown in a blurred manner.

Subsequently, the Court directed YouTube and other platforms to block the video for failing to adhere to its previous order, emphasizing the imperative of Court directives being diligently followed until legally contested or overturned. These events underscored the Court's role in balancing constitutional rights with statutory protections, ensuring fair adjudication in cases involving intellectual property and freedom of expression.

Analysis and Conclusion:

Initially, the Court issued an interim injunction in March 2023, directing Rathee to remove portions of his video that allegedly disparaged Dabur's 'Real' fruit juice product. This decision reflected the Court's immediate concern for potential trademark infringement and the protection of Dabur's commercial interests, highlighting its role in safeguarding intellectual property rights.

However, the subsequent developments in the case raise several critical points for analysis and critique. Firstly, the Court refrained from invoking Section 30(1) of the Trademarks Act, which allows for honest use of trademarks without infringing rights, despite Rathee's video not explicitly mentioning Dabur or 'Real' and only showing blurred images of the product. This cautious approach by the Court suggests a conservative interpretation of intellectual property laws, potentially limiting the scope of permissible criticism and fair use in digital media.

Moreover, the Court's emphasis on the potential for consumer confusion or harm, as outlined in Section 29(9) of the Trademarks Act, highlights its inclination to protect corporate interests against any perceived disparagement, even if unintended or tangential. This raises concerns about the judiciary's readiness to balance commercial rights with constitutional guarantees of free speech and expression, particularly in cases involving online content creators who play a crucial role in public discourse and consumer awareness.

Furthermore, the Court's handling of procedural aspects, such as enforcing compliance with its orders and assessing the impact of digital media on corporate reputation, underscores the challenges in adapting traditional legal frameworks to the digital age. The Court's decisions, while aiming to maintain fairness and equity, also reflect a need for deeper engagement with evolving norms of online commentary and the rights of individuals to critique and inform the public without undue legal repercussions.

In conclusion, while the Calcutta High Court's approach in the Dabur v. Dhruv Rathee case demonstrates a commitment to protecting intellectual property rights, particularly in a digital context, its reluctance to fully engage with defences like Section 30(1) raises concerns about the scope for legitimate criticism and fair use in contemporary media landscapes. Moving forward, there is a clear need for Courts to adopt a more balanced and nuanced approach that reconciles corporate rights with constitutional freedoms, ensuring robust protections for both intellectual property and freedom of expression in the digital age.