Cookies on the Business Insider India website

Business Insider India has updated its Privacy and Cookie policy. We use cookies to ensure that we give you the better experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we\'ll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on the Business Insider India website. However, you can change your cookie setting at any time by clicking on our Cookie Policy at any time. You can also see our Privacy Policy.


Amul seeks removal of videos claiming they are cruel to cows — HC asks Google, Facebook to respond

Dec 13, 2020, 19:49 IST
The Delhi High Court has sought the response of Google and Facebook on a plea moved by the Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation (GCMMF) Limited, which sells milk and dairy products under the Amul trademark, seeking removal of certain videos alleging that those are cruel to cows.

Issuing notice to the two social media platforms and the person who uploaded the videos and seeking their replies to the GCMMF's suit, Justice Mukta Gupta refrained from passing any interim order directing removal of the videos, titled "Unholy Cattle of India: Exposing Cruelty in the Indian Dairy Industry", from YouTube and Facebook.

The court asked the person, who uploaded the video, to indicate in his reply how the GCMMF or its members were indulging in cruelty to cows and why Amul's mascot was used in the video.
With the direction, the court listed the matter for hearing on January 15, 2021.

The GCMMF, in its suit, has sought the removal of the videos from YouTube and Facebook, claiming that the person who has uploaded those is targeting it.

The suit has contended that the videos uploaded by defendant Nitin Jain "were slanderous and disparaged and denigrated the Amul brand and trademark".

Jain's lawyers -- senior advocate Raj Panjwani and advocates Supriya Juneja and Priyanka Bangari -- told the court that the Amul trademark was not being used by their client for commercial purposes.

Taking note of the defendant's stand and the fact that the videos were in public domain since 2018, the court said it was not passing any ad interim injunction and was giving Jain an opportunity to file his reply.

"Along with the reply affidavit, the defendant 1 (Jain) will also state whether it obtains any profits out of the videos uploaded and if yes, the statement of accounts thereof," the court said. HMP RC
Next Article