← Library
Madras High CourtC.S(COMM DIV)/302/2025disposed of

Nannir Water Source Llp , v. Mr Syed Imran Operator Of The Youtube Channel Buying Facts And 2 Others

2026-04-27Honourable Mr Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy6 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 27.04.2026

CORAM

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY and O.A.Nos.1107 and 1108 of 2025 and A.Nos.5922 of 2025 and 1940 of 2026 Nannir Water Source LLP , A Limited Partnership,Rep by its Designated Partner Mr Baheerathan Raman Kishore Ground Floor Sf 872 Near Vinayagar Kovil Rathinam Nagar Unjampatty Village Theni-625531 Tamil Nadu India ..Plaintiff Vs

1. Mr.Syed Imran Operator of the YouTube Channel Buying Facts 393, 1st Floor, Konnur High Road, Above AK Motors, Otteri, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai -600 012 Tamil Nadu, India

2. Mr Syed Abbas New No 21/3 Old No 9/3 Krishnadoss Road 2nd Street Mangalapuram Perambur Chennai 600 012 Tamil Nadu India

3. The Resident Grievance Officer for YouTube Google LLC India Liaison Office Unit No 26 The Executive Center Level 8 DLF Centre Sansad Marg Connaught Place New Delhi 110001 India ..Defendants

Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules read with Sections 28,29, 30(1), 134 and 135 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms:

a)A permanent Injunction restraining the Defendants, all their principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns in business, representatives and any other person from infringing the trade mark NANNIR under class 9 which is used by the 1st Defendant in the impugned video and thereby restraining them from claiming any right through or under defendants from in any manner infringing the registered trade mark;

b) A mandatory injunction directing the Defendants to remove and permanently take down the 1st Defendant's impugned video dated 25.05.2025 published in the channel "Buying Facts" on the intermediary website, the 3rd Defendant, and also from other social media platforms, the impugned video, parts of it and similar videos containing the disparaging and defaming content regarding the plaintiff and their product, and to desist from republishing or disseminating the same or any similar content in any manner;

c)That the Defendants be ordered and directed to pay the plaintiff a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Fifty Lakhs Rupees only) by way of damages;

d)A Preliminary Decree be passed in favour of the plaintiff directing the Defendants to render a true and faithful accounts of all profit made by them, using the alleged review through the impugned video and a final

decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff for the amount of profit thus found to have been made by the Defendants, together with interest, after the Defendants has rendered accounts;

e) for the costs of the suit.

For Plaintiff:

Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy For Defendants:

Mr.V.Regunathan for D1 and D2 Mr.G.Balasubramanian for M/s.Leela and Co for D3

JUDGMENT

The suit pertains to a video uploaded by the first defendant on the platform of the third defendant. At the hearing on 20.04.2026, learned counsel for the first and second defendants submitted that the video was removed and that an undertaking not to upload similar video in the future would be filed.

2. Mr.Syed Imran, who is the first defendant, has affirmed the affidavit dated 20.04.2026. Paragraph Nos.2 and 3 of such affidavit are set out below:

'2. It is humbly submitted that the plaintiff herein filed a suit against me for the relief of permanent injunction to remove the impugned video dated 25.05.2025 published in the Channel "Buying Facts". It is humbly submitted that the alleged was removed from the said Channel, it is also confirmed by the 3rd Defendant herein.

3. It is humbly submitted that I will undertake that I will not upload the alleged video dated 25.05.2025 again in my Channel.'

3. Because the video was removed and the undertaking not to upload such video was provided by the first defendant, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits, on instructions, that the suit may be disposed of by recording said undertaking.

4. Accordingly, by recording the undertaking dated 20.04.2026, the civil suit is disposed of without any order as to costs. The undertaking affidavit dated 20.04.2026 shall form an integral part of the judgment. Consequently, connected applications are closed. 27.04.2026 Index: Yes/No mmi

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY, J.

mmi 27.04.2026