In India, online brand disparagement has become a major issue due to the rapid growth of social media, influencer marketing, and digital content platforms. Although it is reasonable for businesses to come under criticism and to receive consumer reviews, unproven claims regarding the quality, safety, or authenticity of products can be spread rapidly and cause serious harm to a brand’s reputation and to consumer confidence. As a result, courts are increasingly being asked to strike a balance between securing commercial reputation and allowing legitimate criticism while dealing with disparaging digital content in the online environment.
The Delhi High Court examined this issue in an order dated August 4, 2026, in Patanjali Ayurved Limited & Ors. v. Damit Galhot & Ors. [CS(COMM) 736/2026], where it granted an ex parte ad interim injunction prohibiting the spreading of videos which contained prima facie disparaging and unsubstantiated statements about the plaintiffs’ products.
Background of the Case
The plaintiffs were associated with the PATANJALI brand and claimed extensive and continuous use of the mark since 2006. The Court noted that the PATANJALI marks had been registered and that the mark had also been included in the list of well-known trademarks. The plaintiffs relied on the substantial goodwill and reputation they had built up, along with their sales figures and the large amount of money they had spent on promotion and marketing.
The defendant is a digital content creator operating social media accounts on Instagram and YouTube, having more than 6.12 lakh followers on Instagram and over 21,500 subscribers on YouTube. The defendant was stated to independently test food products for issues such as high sugar content, the presence of chemicals, the use of food colouring and adulteration and ran a campaign against companies described as part of the “food mafia”.
The dispute arose from a series of Instagram and YouTube videos published between March 24 and May 18, 2026. The plaintiffs claimed the videos contained false, derogatory, and disparaging allegations about their products, including assertions about their composition and quality.
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
The plaintiffs claimed the defendant tampered with their products, introduced unidentified external substances, altered their appearance, and used the resulting changes as a basis for their allegations. They also cast doubt on the defendant’s scientific method and on the absence of any supporting test reports or scientific studies.
The videos allegedly included statements describing PATANJALI as a “fraud” in the name of Ayurveda, making derogatory comments about the quality of its products and urging people to boycott the brand. The plaintiffs argued that such statements could adversely affect their goodwill, reputation, and sales.
The plaintiffs also claimed that the content creator used their registered trademarks on video thumbnails and cover images to draw in viewers and followers, and that the creator had also been asking followers for financial support. They argued that using their marks in this way constituted commercial exploitation of the goodwill connected with the PATANJALI brand.
Delhi High Court’s Findings
After examining the transcripts of the impugned videos, the Delhi High Court found that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case for an ex parte ad interim injunction. The Court also held that the balance of convenience lay in the favour of the plaintiffs and that they were likely to suffer irreparable harm if interim protection was not granted.
The Court placed great emphasis on the absence of any disclosed source or scientific basis for the allegations. It observed that, apart from making statements condemning the plaintiffs’ products, there was no indication as to whether the allegations were based on scientific studies, tests or reports.
The Court also noted that the language, narrative and tenor of the videos were provocative and might cause mistrust and a loss of public faith in the plaintiffs’ products; it viewed the possible reputational consequences as especially serious in the event that the allegations could not be proven.
On Online Disparagement and Brand Reputation
The order brings out the distinction between legitimate criticism and prima facie disparaging statements presented without an identifiable evidentiary foundation. A brand operating in a consumer-facing market may be particularly vulnerable to statements concerning product quality because consumer perception could directly affect purchasing decisions.
The Court recognised the plaintiffs’ established reputation and goodwill and found that the impugned statements were prima facie disparaging and denigrating in relation to their products. The Court’s reasoning indicates that the nature and tenor of digital content, coupled with its possible reach and absence of supporting material, can be relevant when determining whether interim protection is warranted.
Importantly, the order was passed at the interim stage. The Court did not finally determine the truth or falsity of every allegation. Instead, it assessed whether the plaintiffs had shown a sufficiently strong prima facie case and whether immediate protection was required to prevent further damage to their reputation and goodwill.
Directions to the Content Creator and Platforms
The Court restrained the defendant and persons acting on his behalf from publishing, uploading, sharing, disseminating, circulating or telecasting the impugned videos or any part thereof on any platform in a manner that would disparage, denigrate, dilute or tarnish the plaintiffs’ reputation, goodwill or registered PATANJALI marks.
The Court also directed Google and Meta to take down specified URLs containing the impugned videos within 36 hours of receiving the order.
The directions demonstrate that protection against online disparagement may require remedies extending beyond the initial content creator. Where allegedly harmful material has already been disseminated through multiple online platforms, effective relief may require coordinated takedown directions to prevent continued circulation.
Importance of the Order
The Delhi High Court’s order reflects the growing importance of protecting brand reputation in the digital ecosystem. It recognises that online content can cause reputation harm at a scale and speed that traditional forms of communication could not achieve.
At the same time, the order reinforces the importance of examining the nature of the statements, their evidentiary basis, the reputation attached to the brand and the likelihood of irreparable harm before granting interim protection.
For brand owners, the decision stresses the need for active online monitoring, preservation of digital proof and a timely legal response to potentially disparaging content. For content creators, it acts as a reminder that serious allegations presented as factual claims should have a credible and demonstrable evidentiary foundation, particularly where such allegations may adversely affect an established brand’s goodwill and reputation.
Authors: Manisha Singh and Kratika Patel