THE BLURRED LINE: THE DHRUV RATHEE VS. DABUR CASE IN REVIEW

FACTS

Mr. Dhruv Rathee, a social media influencer and YouTuber, faced a dispute with Dabur India Limited due to his use of a partially blurred logo of Real Fruit Juice in a promotional video comparing carbonated drinks and fruit beverages. Dabur filed a petition in the Calcutta High Court, alleging trademark and copyright infringement.

PARTIES INVOLVED

Petitioner: M/s Dabur India Limited, Represented by Mr. Sudipta Sarkar, Sr. Adv., and other counsel.

Respondents: Mr. Dhruv Rathee & others, Represented by Mr. Utpal Bose, Mr. Phiroze Edulji

COURT AND DATES:

  • Date: 15th March, 2023
  • Judge: The Hon’ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
  • Court: Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction, Original Side [Commercial Division]
  • Latest Order:- 18 June, 2024

KEY ISSUES :-

  1. Whether using Dabur’s trademark without consent constitutes trademark and copyright infringement?
  2. Whether Dhruv Rathee’s statements about packed fruit juices amount to defamation?
  3. Balancing Defendant’s right to freedom of speech and expression against Plaintiff’s rights to protect their trademark and copyright?

ARGUMENTS BY THE PARTIES:-

  • Dabur India Limited (Petitioner): The petitioner claims that use of Dabur’s trademark without consent is a clear violation of their trademark and copyright rights. In the particular video it is mentioned that the use of such packaged fruit juice is dangerous for health, which badly affects the long-lasting reputation of our product in the market. Dabur also addresses that in order to protect their intellectual property rights, Court need to address such improper use of one’s trademark.
  • Dhruv Rathee (Defendant): The defendant Mr. Dhruv Rathee claims that saying something in his video is his right as per right to free speech and expression. In his video he was just spreading awareness about how packed juice can badly affect someone’s health. Although he admits in the latest hearing that he used Dabur’s trademark logo and is ready to blur it out.

LEGAL SECTIONS INVOLVED:-

  1. Trade Marks Act, 1999:
  • Section 29 (9): It states that “the trade mark may be infringed by the spoken use of those words as well as by their visual representation”
  • Section 30: “Limits on effect of registered trade mark.”
  • Section 32: “Protection of registration on ground of distinctiveness in certain cases.”
  1. Copyright Act, 1957:
  • Section 51: “When copyright infringed.”
  • Section 52: “Certain acts not to be infringement of copyright”
  • Section 55: “Civil remedies for infringement of copyright”
  1. Constitution of India:
  • Article 19(1)(a): “to freedom of speech and expression”
  • Article 19(2): “Nothing in sub-clause (a) of clause (1) shall affect the operation of any existing law, or prevent the State from making any law, in so far as such law imposes reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right conferred by the said sub-clause’
  1. Civil Procedure Code, 1908:
  • Order XXXIX, Rule 1 & 2: “Cases in which temporary injunction may be granted & Injunction to restrain repetition or continuance of breach.”
  • Order V, Rule 9: “Delivery of summons by Court.”
  1. Indian Penal Code (IPC):
  • Section 499: “Defamation”
  • Section 500: “Punishment for defamation”.

The laws mentioned above are the laws that were applicable in this case, we have mentioned them to give a legal outlook of the case like what were the legal aspects of the case, all the infringements, in what laws and what are the punishments.

LATEST ORDER

On june 18, 2024, the Calcutta High Court closed the dispute between Dhruv Rathee and Dabur India Limited because the defendant agreed to blur the packaging of the Dabur’s product (Real Fruit juice) in his video. As both the parties agreed on this Justice Krishna Rao closed the suit by Dabur after recording the contentions of the party. Court further recorded that the plaintiff has agreed to  the changes made by defendant in the video, at all places so as to remove any reference or use of ‘REAL’ trademark.

CONCLUSION

In conclusion this case highlights the importance of balancing the right to freedom of speech and expression for spreading information, creating awareness etc. with intellectual property rights. While the influencer like Mr. Dhruv Rathee have the right to express themselves, they should also keep in mind to respect the rights protected under different laws like trademark and copyright act. By agreeing on blurring the trademark logo of Dabur Mr. Dhruv Rathee maintained the integrity of his content. This case will serve as a precedent in future for such cases in future.

REFERENCES :-

AUTHOR: Ms. Pragati Tomar, pursuing B.A. LL.B. from Prestige Law College, Gwalior