1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Team code: TC 34

1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL

MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2025

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT OF VEDASURYA

IN THE MATTER OF

XYZ NUTRITION …………………………………………….PETITIONER

ARJUN SINGH…………………………………………………DEFENDANT

WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE COUNSEL APPEARING ON

BEHALF OF THE DEFENDANT

1
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

TABLE OF CONTENTS

CONTENT PAGE NO

TABLE OF CONTENTS 2

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 3

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES 4

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION 5

STATEMENT OF FACTS 6

ISSUES RAISED 7

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS 8-9

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED 10-19

PRAYER 20

2
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

LIST OF ABBREVIATION

ABBREVIATION EXTENSION

& And

Art. Article

Hon’ble Honourable

Etc. Etcetera

Ltd. Limited

No. Number

Ors. Others

SC Supreme Court

v. Versus

3
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

STATUTES

 The Constitution of India, 1950

 The Commercial Court Act, 2015
 The Trade Marks Act, 1999
 The Copyrights Act, 1957
 Indian Penal Code, 1860

DICTIONARIES, ONLINE DATABASE AND WEBSITES

 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]
 [Link]

4
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

The Hon'ble Court does not have the jurisdiction to entertain the petition since the current
lawsuit brought by XYZ Nutrition Private Limited against the defendant, Arjun Singh, does
not qualify as a "commercial dispute" under Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. Since the defendant is an independent social media reviewer and customer, it is not a
commercial entity under the Act and is not involved in trade, commerce, or business. As the
defendant’s evaluation was more of a consumer awareness and free speech exercise than a
business transaction, the claim cannot be maintained in a commercial court.

Additionally, a claim must be a business issue that exceeds the designated monetary level for
a business Court to have jurisdiction, according to Section 7 of the Commercial Courts Act,
2015. The Plaintiff has not shown any measurable financial loss as a result of the purported
review, nor has it established a direct business relationship or transaction with the Defendant.
Given the Defendant's status as a private citizen exercising his right to free expression and the
lack of a valid business dispute, the Plaintiff's claim is outside the purview of this Hon’ble
Court and might be rejected for lack of jurisdiction.

5
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

STATEMENT OF FACTS

Fitness expert and social media influencer Arjun Singh is well-known for his evaluations of
fitness and dairy goods. To ensure openness and customer understanding, his evaluations are
based on independent, third-party laboratory testing.

Arjun Singh bought "XYZ Ghee" from XYZ Nutrition Private Limited (XYZ Nutrition) in
January 2024. He used a proxy email address to send the product for examination to Nutra Lab
Analytics, a third-party testing company, in order to remain impartial. The milk fat level was
just 82% by weight, while regulatory guidelines require a minimum of 99.6% by weight. The
test results showed that the product was tainted with palm oil.

Arjun Singh informed the audience by posting a video review on his YouTube channel after
receiving these test results. The lab results and critical analysis were shown in the film, which
also contrasted "XYZ Ghee" with rival products.

The material raised doubts about the product's legitimacy and whether it lived up to its branding
claims. Arjun Singh was accused by XYZ Nutrition of purposefully fabricating information in
order to damage the firm's reputation and trademark, and the company refuted the accusations.
The business filed a commercial complaint against Arjun Singh in the High Court of
Indraprastha, claiming that the review was driven by rivals. The firm sought damages for brand
disparagement and defamation as well as an order to remove the video.

Following Arjun Singh's video, XYZ Nutrition's production license was stopped by
Vedasurya's Food Safety and Standards Authority (FSSA) for regulatory infractions. XYZ
Nutrition contested this ruling, arguing that it was not supported by adequate research but
rather a response to popular indignation over the video.

The Indraprastha High Court decided in Arjun Singh's favor, concluding that:

(A)Since his film was based on independent lab data, it was not defamatory.

(B)Since the evaluation was within the bounds of reasonable criticism, it did not
amount to trademark disparagement.

XYZ Nutrition has now petitioned the Supreme Court of Vedasurya for remedy against Arjun
Singh after being dissatisfied with the High Court's decision.

6
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ISSUES RAISED

ISSUE 1

Whether a commercial suit cannot be maintained against an individual social media

influencer for allegedly misleading product reviews and such content constitutes an exercise
of free speech?

ISSUE 2

Whether the Defendant’s Video Review Qualifies as an Original Work Protected Under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Whether the Plaintiff Has a Lawful Right
to Seek Its Removal Under Copyright Infringement Laws?

ISSUE 3

Whether the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's registered trademark in a satirical video
constitutes an infringement under Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by causing
dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiff's brand reputation?

ISSUE 4

Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation under Section
499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, by publishing statements that harm the reputation of XYZ
Nutrition Private Limited?

ISSUE 5

Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction and monetary
damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and defamation by Arjun Singh?

7
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS

Issue 1: Whether a commercial suit cannot be maintained against an individual social media
influencer for allegedly misleading product reviews and such content constitutes an exercise of
free speech?

It is submitted that since the defendant is not a commercial entity involved in trade or
commerce, the defendant, a social media influencer, cannot be the target of a commercial
lawsuit. The defendant’s evaluation, which was supported by independent third-party testing,
is shielded by the right to free expression guaranteed by the constitution. Due to their factual
backing, public interest, and absence of malice, the remarks are considered fair comment. The
plaintiff's claim is legally unsustainable since the review does not satisfy the requirements for
defamation or misleading remarks. Upholding the defendant's right to review items would
ensure market openness and consumer knowledge.

Issue 2: Whether the Defendant’s Video Review Qualifies as an Original Work Protected Under
Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Whether the Plaintiff Has a Lawful Right
to Seek Its Removal Under Copyright Infringement Laws?

It is argued that since the defendant's use of the plaintiff's trademark in the contested film was
a part of a valid consumer review rather than a deceptive commercial use, it did not violate
Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. On the basis of third-party test results, the
review was accurate and intended to raise consumer awareness rather than damage the
plaintiff's reputation. Additionally, when used in honest business operations, trademarks may
be used for fair criticism, comparison, or evaluation under Section 30(2). The accusation of
trademark dilution or disparagement is baseless since the defendant's actions were free from
malice or business motive.

Issue 3: Whether the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's registered trademark in a satirical video
constitutes an infringement under Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, by causing
dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiff's brand reputation?

8
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

It is submitted that since the defendant's video assessment incorporates imaginative narration,
analysis, and critique, it is considered an original work under Section 13 of the Copyright Act,
1957. According to Section 14, the defendant is the only owner of the copyright, and the
plaintiff lacks a legitimate reason to request that it be removed. Additionally, the use of the
plaintiff's trademark and product picture is covered by the fair dealing provision for criticism
and review under Section 52. Finally, because the review is fact-based and non-defamatory, the
plaintiff's request for removal is an unwarranted limitation on the defendant's free expression
under Article 19(1)(a).

Issue 4: Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation under
Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, by publishing statements that harm the reputation
of XYZ Nutrition Private Limited?

Since the defendant's film is factually supported and serves the public interest, it does not
violate Section 499 of the IPC's definition of defamation. Sincere claims made to educate
customers about the caliber of a product are shielded by the defamation exceptions.
Furthermore, since the review is supported by validated facts, there is no indication of malice
or careless disregard for the truth. Finally, the defamation claim is speculative and
unsupportable since the plaintiff has not shown any significant injury to its reputation, customer
trust, or financial loss. Reasonable criticism of goods that are available to the public is protected
speech.

Issue 5: Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction and
monetary damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and defamation by
Arjun Singh?

Considering the Defendant's activities do not amount to trademark infringement, defamation,

or illegal behavior, the Plaintiff is not entitled to a permanent injunction or monetary damages.
In accordance with Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, the Defendant's use of the
Plaintiff's brand constituted a valid consumer review. As an original work, the video is
protected by copyright law and is covered by fair dealing clauses. Furthermore, the defendant's
remarks lacked malice and were fact-based and made in the public good. Since the plaintiff has
not provided proof of real harm, its demand for monetary damages is legally untenable.

9
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED

Issue 1: Whether a commercial suit cannot be maintained against an individual social

media influencer for allegedly misleading product reviews and such content constitutes
an exercise of free speech?

It is humbly submitted before the hon’ble Supreme Court that a commercial suit cannot be
maintained against an individual social media influencer for allegedly misleading product
reviews and such content constitutes an exercise of free speech on the basis of the following
grounds:

1. That social media influencers are independent content creators and do not qualify as
commercial entities engaged in trade, commerce, or business transactions under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
2. That the respondent's review is protected under freedom of speech under Article
19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Vedasurya and cannot be subjected to a commercial suit.
3. That the review was based on independent third-party testing and thus qualifies as “Fair
Comment”

1.1 Whether social media influencers do not qualify as commercial entities under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015?

According to Section 2(1)(c) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, commercial disputes are
defined as those which arise as a result of transactions between trade, commerce, businesses or
other commercial contractual obligations. The key elements of commercial disputes involve
parties engaged in trade or commerce, a commercial transaction between such parties and an
economic interest arising out of such transactions. It is further argued that social media
influencers are not considered commercial entities unless they are involved in a paid
collaboration or have a contractual arrangement with a business. In this instance, the defendant
is exempted from "commercial actors" as he bought the goods on his own and performed a
review without receiving any payment from the petitioner’s competitors.

In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International1, it is argued that a commentary that is

reasonable and critical of a commercial entity cannot be a violation of Section 29(4) of the

1
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, 2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del)

10
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Trade Marks Act, 1999 unless it is made by a commercial entity with any profit-making
endeavor or in involvement with a competitive business.

1.2 Whether the respondent's review is protected under freedom of speech under Article
19(1)(a)?

It is submitted that the review of the defendant comes under the purview of his fundamental
right under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of Vedasurya which guarantees the right to
freedom of speech and expression to all citizens. This right is inclusive of the right to express
opinions, critique goods and products and information concerning public interest. In the case
of Shreya Singhal v. Union of India, the Supreme Court brought the right to express opinions
on public platforms under the ambit of right to freedom of speech and expression by striking
down Section 66A of the IT Act. In order to curtail the freedom of speech, the grounds for
reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) which includes defamation, public order, incitement
to an offense, and sovereignty of the state must be met. It is argued that the defendant's review
of the product “XYZ Ghee” which is based on verifiable lab test results by Nutra Lab Analytics
and contributed to the interest of the public is under the scope of constitutionally protected
speech. In Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India2, the court rules that freedom of
speech and expression cannot be silenced just because it is inconvenient for a company as it is
fundamental to a democratic society.

1.3 Whether the review qualifies under the legal doctrine of “Fair Comment”?

The defendant has relied on a third-party laboratory test conducted by Nutra Lab Analytics
whose findings include: (a) adulteration of product with “palm oil” (b) milk fat content of 82%
which is in violation of the minimum legal requirement. It is argued that the defendant’s
opinions were not personal or baseless in nature but are factually supported claims in the
interest of the public. It is further argued that the review was neither motivated by ill will or
malice nor made at the behest of a competitor but constitutes a bona fide opinion. The defendant
has relied on a third-party laboratory test conducted by Nutra Lab Analytics whose findings
include: (a) adulteration of product with “palm oil” (b) milk fat content of 82% which is in
violation of the minimum legal requirement. It is argued that the defendant’s opinions were not
personal or baseless in nature but are factually supported claims in the interest of the public.

2
Indian Express Newspapers v. Union of India, 1986 AIR 515

11
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

It is further argued that the review was neither motivated by ill will or malice nor made at the
behest of a competitor but constitutes a bona fide opinion. In Reynolds v. Times Newspapers
Ltd.3, it was held that expressions that are based on verified data from independent sources
cannot be defamatory when they are true and made for public interest unless there is a deliberate
attempt to mislead. Thus, it is argued that the defendant’s comments meet the essentials of the
doctrine of fair comment and cannot be considered defamatory or commercially disparaging.

Issue 2: Whether the Defendant’s Video Review Qualifies as an Original Work Protected
Under Sections 13 and 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and Whether the Plaintiff Has a
Lawful Right to Seek Its Removal Under Copyright Infringement Laws?

2.1 Whether the defendant’s video is an original work protected under Sections 13 of the
Copyright Act, 1957?

According to Section 13 of the Copyright Act of 1957, sound recordings, cinematographic

films, and creative works of literature, drama, music, and art are all protected by copyright. By
giving the author, the only right to reproduce, distribute, and communicate their work in public,
this clause guarantees that every creative expression that satisfies the originality criteria is
safeguarded by copyright law. With its creative information organization, narration, narrative,
and visual presentation, the defendant's video evaluation in this instance is considered a
cinematographic work. His review is an original representation of his ideas and beliefs as it
goes beyond simple factual reporting to include his own independent analysis, commentary,
and critique.

The Supreme Court in Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak4 laid down the Modicum of
Creativity test, stating that "A work must involve some degree of creativity, even if minimal,
and should not be a mere mechanical reproduction of facts or data." Thus, it is argued that the
defendant's film is an original work that merits copyright protection since it presents his results
creatively, has an interesting narrative, and offers a structured critique rather than being a
straightforward factual report.

2.2 Whether the plaintiff’s demand for removal violates the Defendant’s exclusive rights
as a copyright owner under Section 14?

3
Reynolds v. Times Newspapers Ltd. (2001) 2 AC 127
4
Eastern Book Company v. D.B. Modak (36) PTC 1 (SC)

12
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

Copyright Owners Are Granted Exclusive Rights The copyright owner is granted exclusive
rights over their work under Section 14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, which includes the
following rights: (a)Make a tangible copy of the work (b) Share the work with the general
audience (c)Make changes and adjustments to the work. Since the defendant is the one who
created the video review, the defendant is the only one with the legal power to regulate its
public dissemination, replication, and distribution. Therefore, unless the plaintiff can
demonstrate that the video breaches any legislative exceptions, they lack the legal authority to
request that it be taken down. In Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern India
Motion Pictures Association5, the Supreme Court held that the only authority over the use of
a work belongs to the copyright holder and that third parties cannot infringe upon these rights
without a valid reason.

2.3 Whether the defendant’s use of the Plaintiff’s trademark or product image in the
video falls under fair dealing provisions of Section 52?

Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957, outlines circumstances where the use of copyrighted
material does not constitute infringement. Section 52(1)(a) and (b) allow for the use of
copyrighted works for:

(a) Criticism or review of that work or any other work.

(b) Reporting of current events or issues of public interest.

The Defendant’s video review falls within this fair dealing exception as it provides an analysis
and critique of the Plaintiff’s product based on factual findings. The use of the Plaintiff’s
trademark and product image was necessary to identify the subject of his review, which is an
accepted legal practice in comparative and critical discussions. To provide viewers with clarity
and transparency, the Defendant's film graphically represented the Plaintiff's merchandise. The
accidental and required use of a brand or product picture in a review is not considered
infringement by courts. The Delhi High Court held in Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v.
Chintamani Rao6 that fair dealing includes critique and criticism as long as it doesn't contain
false or defamatory material. Since the Defendant’s video review is protected under fair dealing
provisions of Section 52, his use of the Plaintiff’s trademark and product image does not
constitute infringement.

5
Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Eastern India Motion Pictures Association, 1977 AIR 1443
6
Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. v. Chintamani Rao,2012 SCC (Del) 4615

13
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

2.4 Whether the plaintiff’s demand is an unjustified suppression of free expression under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution.

Every Indian person is guaranteed the basic right to freedom of speech and expression under
Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. This privilege consists of: (a)the capacity to offer reviews,
evaluate, and voice opinions (b)the freedom to share information that the public finds
interesting (c)the liberty to participate in reasonable critique and analysis. Free speech protects
reasonable

and truthful criticism, including evaluations from customers. According to Article 19(1)(a), the
Defendant's video review, which evaluates the Plaintiff's product's quality based on factual
facts, is protected expression. The Plaintiff is seeking to stifle reasonable criticism by
requesting the the video be taken down, which is an unreasonable limitation on the Defendant's
fundamental right to free speech. Reasonable limitations on free expression are permitted under
Article 19(2) in the following situations: (a) Defamation (b)Violations of public order 9
(c)Incitement to commit a crime. None of these exclusions, nevertheless, hold true in this case.
There are no false or defamatory assertions in the defendant's review, which is fact-based and
supported by proof. In Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express
Newspapers, corporations7 cannot be held liable for defamation only because a review is
critical unless there is evidence of dishonesty or malicious intent. The Plaintiff's demand that
the Defendant's video be taken down is irrational and unlawful since they haven't demonstrated
that it contains any false or defamatory information.

Issue 3: Whether the Defendant's use of the Plaintiff's registered trademark in a satirical
video constitutes an infringement under Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,
by causing dilution and tarnishment of the Plaintiff's brand reputation?

It is humbly submitted before the Supreme Court of Vedasurya that the defendant's use of the
Plaintiff's registered trademark in a satirical video constitutes an infringement under Section
29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 on the basis of the following grounds:

1. The Defendant’s Use of the Plaintiff’s Trademark is a Legitimate Consumer Review

and Does Not Constitute Trademark Disparagement Under Section 29(8)(c) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999

7
Reliance Petrochemicals Ltd. v. Proprietors of Indian Express Newspapers, corporations,1989 AIR 90

14
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

2. The Defendant’s Use of the Trademark Falls Within the Exception Provided Under
Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999

3.1. Whether the defendant’s Use of the Plaintiff’s Trademark Does Not Constitute
Trademark Disparagement Under Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Section 29(8)(c) of the Trade Marks Act,1999 using a brand in advertising "in a manner that is
detrimental to its distinctive character" constitutes trademark infringement. However, the
impugned video of the defendant was not an advertisement but a mere critical review that relied
on the lab test results of a third party for the purpose of consumer awareness. It is argued that
the defendant did not use the trademark of the plaintiff for commercial gain or misleading
activities but rather to highlight factual findings. In Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace
International8, it was held that “mere criticism or parody of a trademark does not amount to
infringement unless it misleads the public or dilutes the trademark’s origin” .

Moreover, in the case of Godrej Consumer Products Limited vs. Initiative Media
Advertising & Anr9, the Hon’ble Court while determining trademark disparagement laid down
the following factors: (a) intent of the commercial (b) manner if the commercial (c)storyline of
the commercial and the message sought to be conveyed. It is thus argued that the defendant
lacks the malicious intent to mislead the public or unfairly degrade the trademark of the
plaintiff. The defendant did not use a ridiculing tone to present his opinions but rather presented
factual information. It is further argued that the critical review highlighted the quality of the
product rather than make baseless or exaggerated claims

2.2 Whether the defendant’s Use of the Trademark Falls Within the Exception Provided
Under Section 30(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

According to Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act of 1999, it does not amount to infringement
if the use of a registered trademark is in accordance with ethical business or industrial standards
and does not unfairly exploit the trademark or damage the brand’s reputation. A third-party
laboratory test on the product, "XYZ Ghee" by the Defendant revealed that it was tainted with
palm oil. Based on genuine research, the defendant’s video review aimed to educate the
consumers rather than maliciously mislead them or advertise a rival product. The defendant’s

8
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, 2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del)
9
Godrej Consumer Products Limited vs. Initiative Media Advertising & Anr, 2012 (52) PTC 260 (Bom)

15
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

acts fit the definition of honest practices and are covered by the exemption under Section 30(1)
since they were backed up by evidence and did not entail malicious or misleading assertions.

Further, Section 30(2)(d) enables the use of a trademark for identifying products in comparison
advertising, criticism, or review. In the case of Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Murugan
Enterprises10, the Madras High Court decided that if a third party uses a trademark and it fits
under one of the exceptions listed in Section 30, it is not considered infringement. It is argued
that a mark does not constitute trademark infringement or disparagement when it is used in
good faith to describe a product or for legitimate comparative advertising.

Issue 4: Whether the content presented in Arjun Singh 's video amounts to defamation
under Section 499 of the Indian Penal Code 1860, by publishing statements that harm the
reputation of XYZ Nutrition Private Limited?

Under Section 499 IPC, a statement is defamatory if it:

(a)The statement must be published to a third party.

(b) It must contain an imputation concerning the Plaintiff’s reputation.

(c)The imputation must be false and made with an intent to harm reputation.

(d) The imputation must be false and made with an intent to harm reputation.

Section 499 IPC does, however, provide a number of exceptions to defamation that protect
remarks made in the public interest, in good faith, or based on the truth. The following sub-
issues form the basis of the defendant's arguments against defamation:

4.1: Whether the statements in the Video Are True and Made in Public Interest?

If a comment is genuine and made for the public interest, it is not deemed defamatory under
Section 499 of the IPC's Exception 1. The defendant's film aimed to provide market openness
by educating viewers and offering an unbiased assessment of XYZ Nutrition's product. The
video does not constitute defamation if its content is backed up by reports of product testing,
scientific dat . Furthermore, a product that is meant for widespread consumption becomes a
public problem, necessitating the freedom of expression of people like the defendant. The
defendant’s analysis promotes the public interest and consumer rights, which are essential to a

10
Hawkins Cookers Ltd. v. Murugan Enterprises (2012) 189 DLT 545

16
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

fair marketplace, by pointing out possible health and safety issues or by exposing the Plaintiff's
false claims.

In Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab11, the Supreme Court ruled that, in situations involving
defamation, the truth is an unassailable defense if the statement serves the public good. In R.
Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu12, the Supreme Court held that, as long as it doesn't deal
with private concerns, the freedom to broadcast accurate information about public people or
businesses is protected. Discussions on the efficacy and quality of the plaintiff’s product are of
public interest because it is openly promoted. The defendant's video cannot be deemed
defamatory if it conveys true facts.

4.2 Whether the video Does Not Contain Malicious or Recklessly False Statements?

The Plaintiff must demonstrate that the Defendant acted maliciously or carelessly ignored the
truth in order to establish defamation. The Supreme Court in Subramanian Swamy v. Union
of India13 explained that unless there is intentional falsity or malice involved, criticism by itself
is not defamatory. Unless there is evidence of malevolent intent, public interest criticism and
consumer advocacy must be preserved. The defendant's video does not fulfill the requirements
for defamation if it is founded on actual research, professional judgments, or firsthand
accounts. A comment made in good faith about public behavior or goods offered in the market
does not qualify as defamation under Section 499 IPC's Exception 3. The Delhi High Court
decided in Horlicks Ltd. v. Heinz India14 that: Publicly available commercial goods are
subject to reasonable examination and criticism. Until they are shown to be malicious and
untrue, reviews that are grounded on user experience and factual analysis are not considered
defamatory. It is argued that the Delhi High Court decided in Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace
International15 that any business that does business must be willing to have its products
scrutinized and criticized by the general population. Criticism that is supported by sound
research and the general public is not defamatory. It cannot be argued that the defendant
behaved carelessly or without due investigation because his video includes valid and trusted
data.

11
Chaman Lal v. State of Punjab 1970 AIR 1372
12
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu1994 SCC (6) 632
13
Subramanian Swamy v. Union of India (2016) 7 SCC 221
14
Horlicks Ltd. v. Heinz India, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 526
15
Tata Sons Ltd. v. Greenpeace International, 2011 (45) PTC 275 (Del)

17
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

4.3 Whether the video caused unfair or disproportionate harm to the plaintiff’s
reputation?

Defamation requires genuine injury to one's reputation, even if the comment is negative of a
business. Unless the Plaintiff can demonstrate that the Defendant's remarks seriously harmed
its reputation, customer confidence, or company operations, simple criticism or unfavorable
comments do not always qualify as defamation. In Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat
Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd16, the Bombay High Court said that a poor
review alone does not damage a company's reputation. The damage must be disproportionate
and motivated by malicious intent. Similarly in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu17, the
Supreme Court ruled that in a defamation suit, a public figure or corporation must demonstrate
actual malice or serious damage.

The petitioner needs to demonstrate that the defendant's film caused a quantifiable decline in
revenue, consumer trust, or reputation. The defamation action is speculative and lacks merit in
the absence of concrete evidence. The defendant contends that (a) The video contains
legitimate criticism based on factual observations(b)The harm, if any, was incidental and not
disproportionately damaging. (c)Companies operating in the public domain must expect
scrutiny and consumer feedback. Together, these elements demonstrate that the plaintiff has
not experienced unjust or excessive injury, rendering the defamation claim untenable.

Issue 5: Whether XYZ Nutrition Private Limited is entitled to a permanent injunction

and monetary damages as remedies for the alleged trademark infringement and
defamation by Arjun Singh?

It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Vedasurya that the Plaintiffs not
entitled to monetary damages or permanent injunction for the alleged trademark infringement
and defamation by the Defendant on the following grounds:

1. The Defendant’s Use of the Plaintiff’s Trademark Does Not Constitute Trademark
Infringement Under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999
2. The Defendant’s Video Does Not Constitute Defamation Under Section 499 of the IPC
3. The Defendant’s Video Is Protected as an Original Work Under Copyright Law
4. The Defendant’s Video Is a Legitimate Exercise of Free Speech

16
Hindustan Unilever Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd, 2017 (71) PTC 396 (Bom)
17
R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu1994 SCC (6) 632

18
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

5. The Plaintiff’s Injunction Demand Is an Unreasonable Restriction Under Article 19(2)

5.1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to monetary damages?

It is respectfully argued that the plaintiff has no right to demand monetary damages from the
defendant for the claimed defamation and trademark infringement. Only when the plaintiff
presents verifiable evidence of genuine loss brought on by the defendant's acts may damages
be granted. This includes monetary damages, damage to one's reputation, or misunderstandings
among customers that are directly related to the defendant's video. Nevertheless, the plaintiff
has not provided any substantiating data to support its claim, such as market analysis or
financial statements. The Delhi High Court ruled in Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca-Cola
Ltd18. that a simple claim of injury is inadequate and that damages cannot be granted solely on
conjecture. The plaintiff's claim for damages is without merit since it has not shown that the
defendant's evaluation resulted in any quantifiable loss.

Further it is argued that a claim for damages in trademark infringement proceedings must be
backed by proof of the defendant's real loss or unjust enrichment, according to Section 73 of
the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Since the defendant's film was a customer evaluation rather than
an advertisement for a competing product, it did not qualify as unfair commercial use.

18
Pepsi Co. Inc. v. Hindustan Coca-Cola Ltd 2003 (927) PTC 305 (DEL)

19
1ST CHAUDHARY MAHADEO PRASAD NATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION,2025

PRAYER

In light of the facts, issues raised, and arguments advanced, the Counsel on behalf of the
Defendant humbly prays before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Mewar to:

a) Dismiss the Plaintiff’s claims for trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade
Marks Act, 1999, as the Defendant’s use falls under Section 30 exceptions.
b) Declare that the Defendant’s video does not constitute defamation under Section 499
IPC, as it is fact-based, in the public interest, and lacks malicious intent.
c) Recognize the Defendant’s video as an original work protected under Sections 13 and
14 of the Copyright Act, 1957, and that its use of the Plaintiff’s trademark and product
image falls under Section 52 fair dealing exceptions.
d) Deny the Plaintiff’s request for a permanent injunction, as it violates the Defendant’s
right to free speech under Article 19(1)(a) and is not justified under Article 19(2).
e) Reject the Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages, as no actual loss or harm has been
proven.

AND/OR

Pass any other order deemed fit in the interest of Justice, Equity, and Good Conscience.

All of which is respectfully submitted.

20