Emphasising that online publications are capable of causing continuing reputational and commercial injury to the user of a well-known trademark “AMUL”, the Delhi High Court has restrained Defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from uploading any videos or other publications disparaging the plaintiffs or the AMUL mark, and also directed Defendants to take down the URLs within 36 hours of receipt of the order and prohibited re-upload of identical content until further orders.
The Court held that where social media publications are prima facie false, disparaging and structured in a manner that harms the goodwill and reputation attached to a well-known trademark, and where such content has rapid and unrestricted digital reach capable of causing continuing commercial and reputational injury, the Court may grant ex parte ad interim injunctive relief. Accordingly, the Court treated the continuing publication and dissemination of such material as constituting imminent and irreparable harm, especially where reputational injury could not be adequately compensated in monetary terms.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh recorded that the impugned publications and posts on social media platforms were, prima facie, disparaging and appeared to demonstrate a deliberate attempt to sensitize public sentiments relating to cow meat in India. The Bench noted that the content had far-reaching and global dissemination through social media and was causing harm to the formidable goodwill and reputation of the plaintiffs in respect of products sold under the well-known mark AMUL since 1958.
The Bench also observed that, given the false, sensational, provocative and inflammatory nature of the content, there was a real likelihood of further amplification of the misinformation if the material remained accessible in the public domain.
Further, the Bench accepted the plaintiffs’ contention that continued accessibility and circulation of the impugned material posed an imminent and continuing threat to their goodwill, reputation and commercial interests, and observed that once reputation is lost, monetary compensation may not retrieve the damage. On that basis, the Bench found that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction, that the balance of convenience lay in their favour, and that irreparable harm would follow if interim protection were denied.
Briefly, a commercial suit was filed by Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited and another against multiple defendants in relation to allegedly defamatory, misleading and commercially disparaging social media publications concerning the well-known mark “AMUL”. The plaintiffs stated that Plaintiff No. 2 is the registered proprietor of the trademark “AMUL” and its variants, with the oldest registration dating back to 1958, and that Plaintiff No. 1 is the licensed user and exclusive marketer of AMUL branded milk and milk products across India and abroad. The plaintiffs also placed reliance on the long-standing use, extensive registrations, goodwill, reputation, advertising, market presence and turnover associated with the AMUL mark.
The cause of action, as pleaded, arose on April 07, 2026 when Defendant No. 1 published and circulated a video on Facebook which, according to the plaintiffs, falsely suggested that premises associated with Plaintiff No. 1 were a factory or facility where cartons containing cow meat were stored, handled, distributed or sold. The plaintiffs alleged that the video and related posts were disseminated across multiple digital and social media platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X, and were deliberately structured to juxtapose the plaintiffs’ name and signboard with visuals of meat products so as to provoke public outrage, encourage boycott of AMUL products and damage the plaintiffs’ goodwill and business reputation.
