The Delhi High Court has granted ex parte ad interim relief in favour of Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Limited (GCMMF) and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited, directing the removal of social media content that allegedly linked the well-known Amul brand to the supply and distribution of cow meat.
The single-judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the impugned videos and social media publications were prima facie false, disparaging and structured in a manner that appeared intended to provoke public sentiment by associating the reputed brand with cow meat. It held that such content had the potential to cause continuing reputational and commercial injury to the proprietors and users of the Amul trademark, which has enjoyed extensive goodwill and market recognition since 1958.
Justice Singh noted that the publications had been disseminated across multiple digital platforms, including Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X, giving them extensive national and international reach. She observed that the content appeared designed to influence public perception, encourage a boycott of Amul products and damage the reputation of the dairy cooperative and its products.
The commercial suit was instituted by GCMMF and Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited against several defendants over allegedly defamatory, misleading and commercially disparaging social media publications.
The plaintiffs stated that Kaira District Cooperative Milk Producers’ Union Limited is the registered proprietor of the Amul trademark and its variants, with registrations dating back to 1958, while GCMMF is the authorised user and exclusive marketer of Amul-branded milk and dairy products in India and abroad. The suit relied on the long-standing use, extensive trademark registrations, substantial turnover, market presence and reputation associated with the Amul mark.
According to the plaintiffs, the dispute arose on April 7, 2026, when one of the defendants uploaded a video on Facebook allegedly claiming that premises associated with GCMMF were being used as a facility where cartons containing cow meat were stored, handled, distributed or sold. The plaintiffs contended that the cartons visible in the video were, in fact, labelled as fresh frozen buffalo meat and carried a different brand name. However, the video allegedly juxtaposed visuals of meat products with the name and signboard of the plaintiffs, creating a misleading and defamatory narrative.
The plaintiffs further argued that the publications portrayed them as untrustworthy, unethical and religiously offensive, while simultaneously calling upon consumers to boycott products sold under the Amul brand. It was submitted that the continued circulation of such content posed an imminent threat to the plaintiffs’ goodwill, reputation and commercial interests and that reputational damage could not be adequately compensated through monetary damages alone.
After examining the material placed on record, the Court held that the plaintiffs had established a strong prima facie case. It observed that the content was sensational, provocative and inflammatory in nature and carried a real possibility of further amplification if allowed to remain accessible online. The Court accepted the contention that the continued availability of the impugned material would cause irreparable harm and that the balance of convenience favoured grant of immediate interim protection.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from uploading, publishing or circulating any videos, posts or other material containing content disparaging the plaintiffs or the well-known Amul trademark. The defendants were directed to remove the identified URLs from Facebook, YouTube, Instagram and X within 36 hours of receiving the order and were prohibited from re-uploading identical or substantially similar content until further orders.
The Court further ordered that if the defendants failed to comply within the stipulated period, the plaintiffs would be at liberty to notify the concerned intermediaries, which would then be required to take down the content within 36 hours of receiving such notice.
Meta was directed to disclose the basic subscriber information, including names, complete addresses and other available particulars of the operators of the specified Facebook and Instagram accounts within four weeks. Similar directions were issued to X regarding the account operating under the handle @Bharatvasi6 and to YouTube in relation to the channel identified as @DhenuTV.
The Bench also observed that social media publications capable of causing ongoing reputational and commercial harm to a well-known trademark warrant judicial intervention at the interim stage, particularly where the alleged injury is continuing in nature and incapable of adequate compensation through damages.
The post Delhi High Court orders removal of social media content linking Amul brand to beef supply appeared first on India Legal.