Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali

HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY

Date of Judgement: 15 January 2020

Coram: S.J. Kathawalla

Facts of the case:

1.     Marico Limited, the plaintiff was one of the leading players in the Fast Moving Consumer Goods (FMCG) market in India that manufactures and markets inter alia packaged edible oil, edible coconut oil, oats, hair oil, beauty products and other personal care product(s) under its portfolio of various well-known and prestigious brands.

2.     The plaintiff’s most well-known trademarks are PARACHUTE under which it markets inter alia its edible coconut. The plaintiff had undertaken the extensive promotion of its edible coconut oil sold under the brand PARACHUTE in various media.

3.     The defendant was a “YouTuber” / “V-Blogger” who had his channel titled “Bearded Chokra” on the popular website “Youtube”.

4.     On his channel, the defendant who claims to have a Postgraduate degree in Bio-Technology from the Mumbai University produces and uploads videos wherein he reviews products of various manufacturers.

5.     On or about 1st September 2018, the defendant published a video titled “Is Parachute Coconut Oil 100% Pure?”. In this video, the defendant reviewed the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE coconut oil. According to the plaintiff, in or about last week of January 2019, it came across the Impugned video published by the defendant.

6.     It is the plaintiff’s case that in the Impugned Video the defendant makes claims and statements concerning the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE edible coconut Oil, which are false and unsubstantiated.

7.     The plaintiff stated that on the whole, the Impugned Video was disparaging and denigrating in nature.

8.     The plaintiff through its Advocates sent an email dated 28th January 2019 to the defendant whereby the defendant was called upon to cease and desist from publishing or in any manner communicating the Impugned Video to the public, and calling upon him to remove the Impugned Video from social media sites including his YouTube channel.

9.     On 29th January 2019, the defendant replied to the Plaintiff’s advocates defending his video and also proposed to re-make / modify and/or delete portions of the Impugned Video subject to certain conditions stated therein.

10.  On 30th January 2019, the defendant sent another email to the Plaintiff’s advocates stating that he is expecting a response from the plaintiff.

11.  On 30th January 2019, the plaintiff, through its Advocates, replied with a holding email stating that the contents of the defendant’s emails were being considered by the plaintiff and called upon the defendant to remove the Impugned Video in the meantime.

12.  The defendant refused to comply with the aforesaid request of the plaintiff stating that he had a right to voice his opinion.

13.  On 11th February 2019, the plaintiff filed the present suit and on 13th February 2019, the plaintiff made an application for urgent ad-interim reliefs.

14.  The defendant filed his affidavit in reply; the plaintiff filed its affidavit in rejoinder, and the defendant filed a supplementary affidavit in Reply.

15.  Since the pleadings in the matter were complete, by consent of both the sides, the court took up the notice of Motion for final hearing.

16.  The plaintiff inter alia prayed for an injunction against the defendant, restraining him from

·      Publishing or broadcasting or communicating to the public the Impugned Video,

·      Disparaging or denigrating the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL product or any other product of the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s business and

·      Infringing the registered trademarks of the plaintiff.

 

Issues raised:

1.     Whether the defendant made false, malicious or reckless statements

2.     Whether the statements were published recklessly or maliciously / Due diligence exercised by the defendant

3.     Whether special damages were suffered by the plaintiff

 

 

 

 

Plaintiff’s contentions:

The Learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiff submitted the following:

1.     The defendant’s video was a targeted attack directed against the plaintiff’s product made with an attempt to attract more viewers towards his video.

2.     The Impugned video provided incorrect information and deceived the viewer into believing that the tests conducted substantiated the claim of the defendant that the plaintiff’s product was of inferior quality and/or is inferior to other oils.

3.     The impugned video as a whole was disparaging and denigrating in nature. The Impugned

video maliciously published by the defendant comprises words and visuals in respect of the plaintiffs PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL, which were false and which have not only denigrated the plaintiff’s product but also caused and likely to further cause special damage to the plaintiff.

4.     Since the defendant claims that creation and publication of such videos is his occupation and source of livelihood, the defendant’s review cannot be equated or treated at par with any other review provided by an ordinary consumer since the intention of an ordinary consumer is not to generate viewership or hits and consequently earn revenues from the impact created by the Impugned Video.

5.     The defendant promoted a competing product PURE & SURE organic cold-pressed coconut oil in his impugned Video in substitution for the product of the plaintiff and urged the viewers to stop using the plaintiffs PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL and attempted to promote two other competing products by providing links for purchasing these products from online retailers such as amazon.

6.     The acts of the defendant fall under the category of ‘commercial activities’ and not a general review of the product by an ordinary consumer.

7.     The defendant in his video was spreading a false message concerning the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL insinuating inter alia that:

·      The packaging of the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is inferior and that the cap of the bottle of the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is flimsy;

·      The fragrance of the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is very strong and it smells similar to a rotten coconut

      From the tests conducted by the defendant, the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL

a)      Is inferior to organic cold-pressed oils

b)    Is made from poor quality coconuts or is heated to a high temperature

c)     Has impurities and that the same is seen once the oil is frozen

d)    The antibacterial properties or antifungal properties and nutrients in PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL are less due to the processing it undergoes

Concerning the above-mentioned statements/insinuations made by the defendant in the video, it was submitted that:

a)     It is inconceivable that the defendant who claimed that he promotes PURE & SURE coconut oil since ‘he consumes it himself, presumably on a regular basis and has used only one bottle of the Plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL was in a position to make a bold statement that the cap often breaks. He submitted that on the contrary, the plaintiff has stated that they have received the INDIA STAR Packaging Award 2017 across 12 categories.

b)    The defendant’s insinuation that the plaintiff’s product was made of rotten coconuts is not an honest or fair opinion and cannot be equated in any manner or form with hyperbole or an exaggerated statement not to be taken literally and the truth is that the aroma of the Parachute Coconut oil is natural and characteristic of Copra.

c)     Since the packaging of the plaintiff’s product did not mention the grade of the coconut used, where they have been extracted from and which coconut it has been extracted from, the defendant was attempting to imply that there is some information sought to be concealed by the plaintiff since the coconuts used were of inferior quality, which is factually incorrect.

d)    The defendant fails to mention the nature of the impurities in the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL.

e)     The nutritional values mentioned on the products produced before this court during the hearing indicate that there is no substantial difference but only a minor variance in the nutritional values between the plaintiff’s product and the products recommended by the defendant in his video.

f)     The defendant admitted that the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is unrefined and therefore has not undergone any processing but made a contradictory claim that the antibacterial properties or anti-fungal properties and nutrients in PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL are less due to the processing it undergoes.

8.     The defendant should have conducted proper research or relied on lab reports before coming to the conclusion and making the video and should have conducted enquiries with the plaintiff to ascertain the truth/facts before making the false, reckless and disparaging statements in the video since the impression given by the use of forceful, decisive and assertive statements/phrases in the Impugned Video was that the defendant is an expert and has undertaken extensive research on the topic and/or is concluding based on sound and thorough groundwork, research etc.

9.     The defendant’s malice is evinced by the denigrating replies posted by the defendant on the comments to the Impugned Video, such as follows:

“This video was only to bring awareness to the general public of the inferior quality of parachute coconut oil.” “Also the freeze test method was only to show the impurities.”

“I know there are many tricks which companies use to make a fool of the public

and that’s what I am busting.”

10.  The defendant knew fully well that the contents of the Impugned Video constituted the tort of malicious falsehood and slander of goods; that for this reason, the defendant offered to delete certain portions of the video where he sought to make a comparison and also offered to make a completely fresh video after a re-evaluation of a fresh product of the plaintiff.

11.  The defendant conducted FREEZE TEST which is neither a correct test nor a correct comparison and the only test conducted by the defendant to conclude that PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is inferior to the other oil is that of freezing and no other test whatsoever has been conducted either by the defendant or through an independent testing centre to test the quality of the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL.

12.  The defendant has not conducted any tests whatsoever to evaluate the nutritional value of the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL vis-à-vis virgin coconut oil or even organic cold-pressed coconut (copra) oil to be in a position to infer that the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL lacks nutritional value.

13.  The defendant had deliberately misled the consumers by inserting sudden inconsequential references to Virgin Coconut Oil and its benefits or the differences between refined oils and unrefined oils in the Impugned Video which have no relation to the alleged tests conducted and the alleged inferior quality of the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL.

14.  The defendant’s actions satisfy all ingredients to constitute DISPARAGEMENT, SLANDER OF GOODS, AND MALICIOUS FALSEHOOD. He relied upon the Halsbury’s Laws of and the decision of this Court in Hindustan Unilever Limited vs. Gujarat Co-operative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd & Ors.

15.  There is a difference between an action for defamation and action for disparagement, slander of goods, a malicious falsehood which was considered by this Court and it has been held that the defence available in an action for personal defamation would not be available in the case of an action for disparagement.

16.  If the plaintiff demonstrates that at least one customer has been lost or a pleading which demonstrates that the action would lead or has led to such damage would suffice and satisfy the criteria of special damage. Special damage does not mean special in terms of quantum but special in terms of the nature of the damage which is a simpliciter monetary loss that cannot be valued and compensated.

17.  The fact that the loss caused cannot be evaluated in monetary terms itself could constitute “special” damage and that it is impossible to ascertain the nature of the damage caused.

 

Defendant’s contentions:

The learned Advocate for the defendant submitted the following:

1.     The defendant did not delete adverse comments against his video shows that he acted bona fide to educate his viewers to ensure that his viewers would be able to see his video, read both the positive and negative comments, and decide for themselves whether to believe the defendant or not. This establishes that the defendant’s objective was to educate his viewers.

2.     In this case, the plaintiff used a trick of showing a wet coconut alongside its product to fool consumers into thinking that its product was derived from wet coconut instead of copra.

3.     The statements made by the defendant in his Impugned Video are true and constitute his bona fide opinion.

4.     The defendant’s offer to delete some portions of his video, in his reply to the plaintiff’s cease and desist notice, was a concession / good faith attempt made to finally settle the matter, not an admission of wrongdoing.

5.     A concession made in the course of trying to settle a matter can never be considered to be an admission and the defendant’s email was not an unconditional admission, but only a concession made to settle the dispute.

6.     The products provided in the links below the Impugned Video are organic cold-pressed coconut oil and virgin organic cold-pressed coconut oil and are each other’s competitors/rivals. When a viewer clicks on one of these links and purchases the product, the defendant receives a commission from amazon but not the owners of the competing products.

7.     The defendant has so far received money from 13 brands/companies to promote their products on his channel and in such cases, the defendant mentions in the video itself or the description section to the video, that the video is a paid endorsement.

8.     The defendant has also reviewed two products of the plaintiff, without receiving any money from the plaintiff wherein, in many parts, his review was favourable to the plaintiff.

9.     The plaintiff’s product is not branded or marketed as being “copra oil” which is how much oil is known and the plaintiffs packaging merely uses the generic term “coconut oil” and the bottle shows a coconut with water gushing out.

10.  The plaintiff’s advertisements suggest that its oil is extracted from wet coconuts and therefore it’s comparison with virgin coconut oil / organic cold-pressed coconut oil is justified.

11.  There are several scholarly articles, published in reputed scientific journals, in which clinical trials have revealed that “copra oil” is inferior in quality to ‘virgin coconut oil’ relying upon which advocate for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL which is a copra oil is a species of refined coconut oil.

12.  The statements made by the defendant in the Impugned Video are true / constitute bona fide opinion and that the plaintiff’s oil “is of an inferior quality to other organic cold-pressed coconut oils” is correct and in accordance with the scientific literature and the famous and widely referred Dr Fifef’s tests.

13.  The defendant’s statement that the smell of the plaintiff’s product is akin to “a dried or rotten coconut” is hyperbole/exaggeration and not meant to be taken literally.

14.  The plaintiff has not suffered any “special damage” arising out of the impugned video and unlike an ordinary case of defamation, damage to the plaintiff from a false/defamatory statement cannot be presumed in cases involving the tort of disparagement of goods.

15.  The defendant’s video has been “liked” only by 2,500 viewers, which is only 2.31% of those who viewed the video and the plaintiff has not been able to show that 2,500 of its customers have not bought the plaintiff’s product.

16.  The defendant’s video has been “disliked” by 397 viewers which shows that the defendant’s viewers are intelligent and discerning, and they exercise their independent judgment when they view the defendant’s video.

17.  The defendant is neither a trader/manufacturer nor a rival of the plaintiff’s goods and as such, the tort of disparagement of goods/slander of goods does not apply to him.

18.  The tort of disparagement of goods/slander of goods is a specie of libel/defamation and the plea of justification is available to the defendant.

19.  The defendant has appeared before this Court and stated that he seeks to take the plea of justification and the defendant has also mentioned evidence by which he will substantiate his case. This is sufficient to refuse an interlocutory injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has also established, prima facie, that he is likely to succeed at the trial.

20.  Section 40 of the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 does not impose any prior restraints, i.e., it does not require that a person must approach the statutory authority before making any comment about a product and such a requirement would impose an unduly harsh and onerous burden on the freedom of speech and expression.

21.  The plaintiff is not likely to suffer any irreparable harm if the Impugned Video is retained on YouTube. A number of views on the said video have now stagnated; that it is not as though the video is going viral or that millions of viewers are viewing the video every day.

22.  There is no imminent likelihood of any damage to the plaintiff. It would be preferable for the plaintiff to prepare its video countering the video of the defendant, rather than seeking to impose a prior restraint on the defendant through an interim injunction.

 

Plaintiff’s further contentions:

The Ld. Senior Advocate for the plaintiff stated the following:

1.     The defendant’s intention is not merely to educate his audience or to inform them about the different types of coconut oils or its manufacturing processes or advantages as falsely claimed by the defendant.

2.     The defendant through this impugned Video tried to malign the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL which was apparent from the landing screen of the video which states, “IT’S NOT AS GOOD AS YOU THINK!! I’LL PROVE IT!!!!”.  If the defendant intended to create an educative video with the consumer’s interest in mind and to bust the tricks used by companies to fool consumers, the defendant should have approached any independent laboratory to conduct tests and to give verified results to the consumers.

3.     As per the depiction in the impugned video, the impression which is created by the defendant is that the oil used by the defendant for comparison with the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL and for performing the tests is cold-pressed organic coconut oil which is also made from Copra. The defendant has passed of virgin coconut oil as cold-pressed organic oil in the Impugned Video and poured the same in the glass marked “ORGANIC” to falsely depict and create an impression that organic cold-pressed oil made from copra was clear and to thereafter draw an incorrect conclusion that the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL which is also made from copra was yellowish and hence of inferior quality.

4.     The defendant’s argument that he believed the Plaintiff’s product was virgin coconut oil made from wet coconuts is fallacious. The device of two coconuts splashing on the packaging of PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL is not misleading or meant to mislead. The said device is not a depiction of a wet coconut with water splashing but is a depiction of oil between the coconuts and it is a registered trademark of the plaintiff and the plaintiff is entitled to use the same.

5.     The link in the description of the impugned video and all other material that has been produced over the course of hearing relates to virgin coconut oil and is irrelevant.

6.     Not a single article produced by the defendant mentions that pure unrefined organic cold-pressed coconut oil or the unrefined organic expeller-pressed oil or normal unrefined expeller-pressed coconut oil should be colour-less or that a colouration suggests impurity or inferior quality. The only document that has been produced which refers to the only test conducted by the defendant viz. “freeze test” is an internet news article. Since it is a newspaper article the document is not admissible.

7.     The said underlying research of Dr Bruce Fife is neither produced nor relied upon. It is not the case of the defendant that Dr Bruce Fife has tested the PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL to be in a position to comment on whether it is inferior to either virgin coconut oil or cold-pressed organic coconut (copra) oil.

8.     The veracity of documents over the internet is the same as newspaper reports which are hearsay in nature and are inadmissible in law even at an ad-interim stage – at least as the sole basis for refusal of interim reliefs. The material produced along with the suit is mostly primary evidence in the form of one on one correspondence or direct evidence. However, the reports and articles of nature referred to above which place reliance on further other material are always hearsay in nature that the ability of the impugned video to create an impact has been misinterpreted by the defendant.

9.     Not all viewers of a video react to the video and the impact of the video has to be judged based on the likes and dislikes that have been generated and the ratio thereof. Over 85% of the viewers who have reacted have been impacted by the video and have been influenced by the false, misleading and malicious statements made by the defendant. He submitted that no further evidence is required at an ad-interim / interim stage of special damage.

10.  The number of hits/views on the impugned video increase daily and the hits have not stagnated as sought to be suggested by the defendant. Every visit to the links and/or broadcast of the same and each day of continuance of the Impugned video has a grossly damaging effect on the plaintiff’s PARACHUTE COCONUT OIL product of the plaintiff and the reputation of the plaintiff and its product.

11.  The defendant is unauthorizedly using the plaintiffs registered mark PARACHUTE in the course of trade in the manner set out above. Such unauthorized use of the Plaintiffs registered mark PARACHUTE in the impugned Video takes unfair advantage of and is contrary to honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. Such unauthorized use of the mark PARACHUTE is detrimental to its distinctive character and is against the reputation of the mark.

12.  The continuation of the impugned video would result in further loss of customers and loss of reputation and goodwill and special damage to the plaintiff.

13.  The defendant promotes other products and also invites offers from his viewers for paid consultation services through the Impugned Videos given by him and therefore, the creation and publication of the impugned video by the defendant is like a commercial speech and is not merely an expression of the defendant’s personal views, opinion or comment. It is incorrect on the part of the defendant to argue that the law of disparagement does not apply to him or that this is not a case of trade libel since he is not a rival trader or competitor.

14.  The defendant has admitted that making and posting videos on the internet i.e. on his YouTube channel is his only source of revenue and that the impugned video was also, therefore, a part of his occupation/calling and created in the course of his trade. The defendant made the impugned video with a solely commercial purpose of generating revenue, which is also the reason why the defendant has created all his other videos.

15.  The impugned video was being monetised even until 12th February 2019 for about two weeks after the plaintiff had issued the defendant a cease and desist notice. Once the video was created and used for a commercial purpose, the amount of revenue generated is not relevant.

Defendant’s rejoinder

The Learned Advocate for the defendant submitted that

1.     To hold that newspaper reports cannot be relied upon at the interim stage because they are hearsay would mean that virtually no document can be relied upon unless the author of the document is the deponent who has verified the pleadings.

2.     At the interlocutory stage, the court must confine itself to the material which has been brought on record, without examining whether or not the same is proven.

3.     To determine whether or not there is “malice” in a case it must be ascertained whether the defendant made the statement knowing that it is false or with reckless disregard as to whether it is true or false.

4.     The defendant was not actuated by malice since he referred inter alia to the test prescribed by the reputed Dr Bruce Fife in evaluating the product of the plaintiff.

 

 

JUDGEMENT:

The court’s reasoning and findings:

The court stated that the defendant being a ‘social media influencer’ bears a higher burden to ensure there is a degree of truthfulness in his statements and added that a social media influencer cannot deliver statements with the same impunity available to an ordinary person.

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS ARE FALSE?

A perusal of the video shows that except the colour of the plaintiff’s oil in the liquid and frozen forms, the defendant has not mentioned or analysed any other details of the plaintiff’s product. Conversely, the defendant has omitted details of the products used by him to compare with the plaintiff’s product. Nutritional value of Virgin Coconut oil and plaintiff’s products are almost identical. The defendant has not conducted any independent tests to prove that there is a significant variance in the nutritional values of the products. The defendant did have the option of having the plaintiff’s product analysed under Food Safety Standards Act, 2006. This would have shown the bona-fides of the defendant in giving the correct and true information about the product. Falsehood on the part of the defendant is also evident from the fact that the only test conducted by the defendant to conclude that the plaintiff’s product is of inferior quality is ‘Freeze Test’. The plaintiff’s product is an Unrefined Expeller pressed Coconut Oil and not Virgin Coconut Oil. In the video, the defendant uses and shows the words ‘organic coconut oil’ for the other oil used by the defendant. However, the defendant compares ‘virgin coconut oil’ with the plaintiff’s product. If the two oils used by the defendant for conducting the ‘freeze test’ did not belong to the same category i.e. ‘organic coconut oil’, the parameters of colour and particulate matter used by the defendant and the result based thereon would not only be inaccurate but also erroneous. The defendant has purposely and knowingly misrepresented to the viewers that he was comparing the plaintiff’s product with ‘organic coconut oil’ when in reality he was comparing it with ‘virgin coconut oil’.

WHETHER THE DEFENDANT’S STATEMENTS WERE MALICIOUS OR RECKLESS?

In the impugned Video, the defendant has made use of forceful statements and thus has portrayed himself as an expert who has undertaken extensive research. The literature relied upon by the defendant pertains to gauging the quality of ‘Virgin Coconut Oil’ and thus inapplicable to present case. The Article does not demonstrate as to how the discolouration in ‘Coconut Oil’ or a strong smell in ‘Coconut Oil’ is a sign of inferiority. The article does not refer to the colour of unrefined oils made from copra or that any inference is to be drawn in respect of colours of unrefined Coconut Oil. In the context of oils made from copra, the article only mentions that the same may contain mould (fungus) but the same is not harmful in any nature or form. Thus, the article in no manner or form lends credence to the findings made by the defendant. The defendant had no reason to believe that the statements he made were true since there is material concerning the plaintiff’s product to demonstrate that such belief was possible.  And thus the defendant’s statements have been made with recklessness and without caring whether they were true or false.

WHETHER ANY SPECIAL DAMAGES WERE CAUSED TO PLAINTIFFS?

The plaintiff has suffered special damages in the present matter as the Defendant’s video assumable has been liked by two thousand five hundred (2500) individuals and thus the impact of the video on the plaintiff’s reputation and damage caused to it cannot be underestimated.

The defendant has afforded no explanation for using the term ‘rotten coconuts’. Later in his video, the defendant has once again insinuated that the plaintiff’s product might be made from poor quality coconuts. In an action for disparagement/malicious falsehood/slander of goods, it is irrelevant whether the defendant is a trader or not so long as the necessary ingredients are satisfied.

Fundamental rights cannot be abused by any individual by maligning or disparaging the product of others.

The Court accordingly directed the defendant to take down the video and remove it from YouTube and any other platform in any medium whatsoever.

TEMPORARY INJUNCTION WAS GRANTED AGAINST THE DEFENDANT.

 

COMMENT:

Social media is the perfect platform to misuse the fundamental right to speech and expression guaranteed to every citizen of this country. While one uses this right as a defence to derogatory statements made, they often forget that right to dignity is also a fundamental right which is at stake because of the reckless statements and baseless accusations they make. Social media in general these days has given people the opportunity to say whatever they want without having the fear of being punished. There are so many websites making numerous statements starting from a water bottle’s material to theory of mars having water content irrespective of checking the authenticity. With intriguing thumbnails to such videos, people attract more and more likes which help them in making easy money. While doing this, people often forget or probably choose to ignore that they might cause harm to someone. With the concept of “influencers” on rise, everybody with a phone has an opinion which he/she thinks would be an ultimatum if shared. In the present case, the person posted a video about the quality of a product. Not just him, anyone and everyone has a right to do so. But only after making sure that their accusations if any are backed by strong theories and evidence. In the present case, he not only used wrong tests but was himself confused between two completely different products. The biggest problem with the video is him adding his qualifications which is one of the best ways to make the viewers believe in the statements and accusations made.

The judgement was in favour of the defendants and it rightly struck down the irrelevant and highly irresponsible statements made by the defendants. I, however, feel this was not it. The defendant should have been asked to pay compensation to teach a lesson to people who intentionally or unintentionally spread false statements and fake theories. However, the plaintiff had not asked for compensation but asked for the video to be taken down. This was ordered by the court and justice was given in favour of the plaintiff. The only addition the court could have made was to make him record another video stating that the theory he had put forth was not true. The defendant in his contentions had raised this point saying that the plaintiff may make a counter video justifying their facts. This should have been the defendant’s task to do as he was solely responsible for the chaos created and there is every possibility that viewers believed in his theory and made videos professing the same. The court could have ordered for the judgement to be widely publicised.