Institute of Legal and Management Studies

While hearing news agency ANI's defamation suit against YouTuber Mohak Mangal alleging that his recent YouTube video is disparaging and defamatory towards the agency, the Delhi High Court on Thursday (May 29) orally suggested that certain words used by the YouTuber in his video were "offending".

While rising for lunch hour, Justice Amit Bansal after watching the video asked Mangal's counsel senior advocate Chander Lall to take instructions on taking down these portions.

While watching the video the court orally asked, as to where was the statement 'Penalty hoti hain 5 Lakh ki' coming from asking if this was Mangal's version.

To this Lall said, "I'll give a red line version whatever portion I'll take down...I'll give a red line version. But hear me for 10 mins after that. I'll show what they are doing is telling"

The matter will be taken up after lunch.

Mangal violating ANI's copyright content

Appearing for ANI, Senior Advocate Amit Sibal said, "They are violating my copyright content. I say take license. They took clips from my videos, those were interviews. They use them in their own posts. Done on six occassions. There is unlawful publication of my content". Advocate Siddhant Kumar also appears for the news agency.

Sibal said that video platform YouTube has a system of copyright strikes. He added, "The conditions are if there is no response... Three strikes and your channel is suspended. I approach them and say you're infringing my content. I offered a license. They could have rejected my offer. Instead of that, to put pressure on me, the defamatory material is circulated against me".

Sibal said, "He presents as if there is actual conversation (in the video). Absolutely false".

Kamra and Zubair's post seem to indicate concerted effort against ANI

With respect to defendants Kunal Kamra, Mohd. Zubair and John does Sibal said, "This seems to be a concerted effort with Defendant no. 1 (Mangal)".

Pointing to the posts of the other defendants including Kamra and Zubair Sibal said,

Contending that the plaintiff is getting "hate mail", Sibal said, "Just look at the picture with my trademark". The court at this stage asked if the post was by a third party.

To this Sibal said, "Yes. Which is why I am asking for John doe. This is to put pressure on me....".

The court at this stage orally asked if ANI had filed for copyright infringement. To this Sibal said that the present lawsuit was for defamation and for copyright infringement the plaintiff will file a separate lawsuit.

With respect to entering similar agreements with third parties on use of ANI's content Sibal further said, "Similar agreements I am entering into with third parties. Kindly see the remuneration. With social media platform user taking a license from me when I approach them with infringement".

Media campaign to malign ANI, agency being referred to as 'Gunda'

Sibal thereafter took the court through YouTube's Rules on copyright strikes.

Sibal said that Mangal had started a "media campaign against" ANI which has "spiralled into a concerted campaign which is nothing short of defamatory".

Sibal contended that Mangal is using ANI's registered trademark as well. He said that the plaintiff is seeking that these posts be taken down and no similar posts be uploaded to ensure that there is no infringement of ANI's trademark.

Sibal further contended that he is also seeking a John Doe prayer as well with respect to content posted by unamed entities against the plaintiff. Pointing to specific URLs, Sibal said, "This is all spiralling".

ANI asked Mohak Mangal to pay 40 lakh per year for license

Appearing for Mangal, senior advocate Chander Lall argued, "What does my channel say? That there is extortion by someone. They have no license. I am not infringing. They say you pay me 40 lakh per year for license. Then they say two years. Under YouTube the third strike, I channel it. I write to YouTube. If my channel gets blocked then I am stuck. I have to pay then. I don't need to move court. I write to YouTube." Advocate Nakul Gandhi also appeared for Mangal.

At this stage the court said, "I agree that you don't have to take license. You've written to him?. You don't want to take license but you want to use videos?"

To this Lall said responded in the affirmation; the court thereafter asked, "Then use but why you come out with these statements? How do you justify?"

Lall however submitted that there was a legal way of copyright infringement, however ANI cannot call Mangal and "extort money from" him saying that "if you don't pay the channel will be blocked".

To this the court said, "YouTube is allowing strikes no? Let's cut this short... You make out your case". Lall submitted that ANI has no right to license.

Can ANI's demand be called extortion?

Lall meanwhile argued, "He writes to YouTube.... Till date they (ANI) have not taken injunction against me for copyright".

The court asked if Mangal was earning revenue out of the videos. At this stage Lall submitted that it was news reporting and ANI has to make out a case of infringement.

The court however orally said, "You confine yourself to defamation"

Lall submitted that a Trademark infringement suit will not lie in the present case. To this the court said that its concern right is disparagement and these videos on the face of it are disparaging.

Lall then asked the court to peruse the video posted by Mangal and the overall framework.

The suit has been filed against Mangal's YouTube video titled “Dear ANI” which has 5.5 million views at present. The suit also names comedian Kunal Kamra, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair and unknown entities (john does) as defendants for sharing Mangal's video on their X Corp (formerly Twitter) handles.

As per the suit, Mangal in his YouTube video has alleged that ANI, in seeking to enforce its copyright over its published content, is holding people hostage and committing extortion and blackmail.

It further states that Mangal has called upon all members of public to unsubscribe to all the services offered by ANI. ANI has claimed that in his video, Mangal has deliberately misrepresented communications with ANI, including by using artificial intelligence tools, with the intent to target and malign the news agency and its employees.

The suit submits that the Impugned Video reflects a “calculated and malicious attack” on the reputation, credibility, and goodwill of ANI and also its registered trademarks.