Calcutta High Court Denies Urgent Relief To Dabur In Suit Against Influencer Over 'Real Fruit Power' Videos

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday issued notice to Avanish Agarwal and other respondents on a suit filed by Dabur India Ltd alleging that videos posted by Agarwal about its REAL Fruit Power brand were misleading, malicious, disparaging, and defamatory, while declining immediate interim relief.

Justice Sugato Majumdar, hearing the matter on May 19, observed that while Dabur's right to seek legal recourse could not be denied, consumer interest and the dissemination of information relevant to consumers also required consideration before any injunction could be granted.

The suit concerns videos posted by Agarwal carrying titles such as “That Litchi Juice Has More Sugar Than Coke” and “I'm not Deleting This. Every Word Came from Their Bottle.”

Dabur alleged that Agarwal had made a deliberate comparison between its REAL Fruit Power Litchi ready-to-serve fruit beverage and reconstituted juices, thereby spreading misinformation among consumers and harming the brand's reputation and value.

According to the company, it issued a notice to Agarwal on May 6 asking him to stop making what it described as derogatory statements about the brand. Dabur alleged that further videos were uploaded thereafter, prompting it to approach the High Court seeking a prohibitory order restraining the continued publication and sharing of such content.

The Court, however, was not persuaded to grant ex parte relief at this stage.

“Right of the Petitioner to agitate grievance before adjudicatory body cannot be denied. But at the same time, the question remains whether consumer interests and necessity of dissemination of information of such interest should counter balance the commercial interest of the Petitioner,” the Court observed.

The Court further noted, prima facie, that parts of the videos appeared to rely on statements printed on Dabur's own product packaging.

“Counter balancing consumer interests cannot be ignored, at this stage, before passing the injunction,” the Court ruled.

Holding that the matter required a hearing on affidavits, the Court directed issuance of notice.

The matter will now be placed before the regular Bench on re-opening of the court.