Patanjali Foods Moves Bombay High Court Against YouTube Channel For Making Defamatory Video, Demands ₹15.5 Crores In Damages

Patanjali Foods has approached the Bombay High Court against popular YouTube Channel 'Trustified Certification' demanding Rs 10.5 crores as damages for loss of reputation and Rs 5 crore as 'special damages' for causing injury to their brand by uploading an allegedly 'defamatory' video against its product 'Nutrela Soya Chunks.'

The suit filed through advocate Apoorv Srivastava was listed before a single-judge bench of Justice Sharmila Deshmukh, before whom the defendant YouTube channel raised a 'preliminary' objection to the maintainability of the suit arguing that it failed to comply with the provisions of Section 12 of the Commercial Courts Act, which mandate 'pre-institution mediation' in suits not requiring urgent reliefs.

Appearing virtually, the Channel's counsel told the judge that the video, against which Patanjali has objected to and filed suit now, was uploaded on December 29, 2024 and that the company was aware of the said video from January 2025.

"But they issued notice to us only on March 4, 2025, to which we responded by our detailed reply filed on March 10, 2025. From then, they did nothing and chose to file this suit only now in December 2025. Thus, there is no urgency and there is non-compliance with section 12 (of the Commercial Courts Act)," the counsel argued. 

However, Patanjali's arguing counsel Prathamesh Kamat urged the court to first hear their submissions and submitted that there was urgency in the matter.

The bench, however, placed the matter for hearing on Monday.

In its suit, Patanjali has stated that the video is specifically aimed at denigrating and disparaging their Product and deliberately misrepresenting and causing confusion in the minds of innocent customers, thereby misleading them.

"The Impugned Video has been uploaded with the sole intent to tarnish and capitalise upon the worldwide popularity attained by the Plaintiff," the suit reads. 

Patanjali has stated that it sells its products nationwide through various authorised distribution channels, with the intention of helping people adopt a healthier, natural lifestyle and that it is one of the leading manufacturers in personal care, food products, and household products, and is carrying on an established business, inter alia, manufacturing and marketing its products for several years under various trademarks/brands which are owned and/or registered with the trademark authorities in India.

"The Plaintiff also claims damages of R.s. 10,50,00,000 for loss of reputation and business disruption, and Rs. 5,00,00,000 as special damages for injury caused to the brand 'PATANJALI'," the plea reads.

The trademark 'Nutrela' Patanjali states to have adopted since 1977 and 1978 and has been producing various products under this trademark's umbrella. 

However, to its "utter shock", in the Impugned Video, the defending Channel has allegedly made false, baseless, defamatory, and derogatory statements against the natural and vegetarian plant-based high protein dietary supplement product - Nutrela Soya Chunks.

Even in its brief submissions on Thursday, Patanjali through its counsel Kamat argued that it has certification from the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI) and the reports based on which the Channel has made defamatory comments against the brand are 'contrary' to the findings of the FSSAI.

"The Plaintiff therefore, seeks immediate removal of such Impugned Video which is in circulation from 'YouTube', and an appropriate order restraining the Defendants from uploading and disseminating the defamatory and denigrating content available on the online platform, including removal of the Impugned video," the suit seeks. 

The Plaintiff has further claimed that there is a prima facie case in its favour and that even the 'balance of convenience' is in its favour. 

"If the reliefs as claimed are not granted, the Plaintiff would suffer grave harm, prejudice, loss, damage, injury, and irreparable injustice to their reputation. However, if the same are granted, the Defendants will not suffer any loss, damage, injury, or prejudice of any nature whatsoever," it is contended.