On Thursday, May 29, the Delhi High Court orally stated that certain of the terms used by YouTuber Mohak Mangal in his latest video were “offending” during the hearing of news agency ANI’s defamation suit against him, which claimed that the YouTuber’s video was derogatory and defamatory towards the agency. After watching the film, Justice Amit Bansal directed senior advocate Chander Lall, Mangal’s counsel, to follow orders on removing these parts as he got up for lunch.
High Court’s Oral Observation on Derogatory Remarks
The court asked verbally during the video viewing where the comment “Penalty hoti hain 5 Lakh ki” from and whether this was Mangal’s version.
“I’ll give a red line version whatever portion I’ll take down,” Lall responded. I’ll provide a version with red lines. But after that, listen to me for ten minutes. I’ll demonstrate how their actions are telling. We’ll discuss the issue after lunch. Mangal’s infringement of ANI’s copyright “They are violating my copyright content,” Senior Advocate Amit Sibal, speaking on behalf of ANI, stated.
Take a license, I say. They used snippets of my interviews from my videos. Their own posts make use of them. completed six times. The publication of my content is illegal. Siddhant Kumar, an advocate, also makes appearances for the news organization.
According to Sibal, the YouTube video platform features a copyright strike mechanism. “If there is no response, you will be suspended after three strikes,” he continued. I go up to them and tell them that their content is being violated. I proposed a license.
They have the option to turn down my offer. Rather than that, the defamatory material being spread against me in an attempt to exert pressure. “My friend has 4 million subscribers on YouTube,” Sibal added, pointing to Mohak Mangal and his followers.
On his website, he shares this. He has more than five million videos. He is not your typical individual. Additionally, he is profiting from the plaintiff’s defamation. He says “unsubscribe” after entering my registered trademark, ANI. Is it permissible to identify a plaintiff and take this action in any circumstance?
Court Questions and John Doe Request
“He presents as though there is actual conversation (in the video),” Sibal said. Completely untrue. “The English translation of vasooli is extortion…. Is it possible to say this about anyone who offers money? Sibal continued. The posts by Zubair and Kamra appear to show a coordinated campaign against ANI. “This seems to be a concerted effort with Defendant no. 1 (Mangal)” was stated by Sibal in reference to defendants Kunal Kamra, Mohd. Zubair, and John Dos. “Just look at the picture with my trademark,” Sibal added, pointing to the posts of the other defendants, Kamra and Zubair, who were arguing that the plaintiff was receiving “hate mail.” At this point, the court inquired as to whether the post was made by a third party.
Sibal responded, “Yes. That’s why I’m requesting John Doe. This is meant to exert pressure on me. At this point, the judge asked ANI verbally if it had filed a copyright infringement lawsuit. In response, Sibal stated that the plaintiff will bring a another lawsuit for copyright infringement and that the current lawsuit was for slander.
ANI is being referred to as “Gunda” in the media campaign to disparage the agency. Sibal then used YouTube’s copyright strike rules to appeal the case. “Spiralled into a concerted campaign which is nothing short of defamatory,” according to Sibal, who claimed that Mangal had initiated a “media campaign against” ANI. “They are referring to me as a kidnapper and gunda. My trademark phrase, “block and unsubscribe,” is being used by them. 8.3 million people have subscribed to me.
There are 4.21 million subscribers to defendant number one. He himself has received five million views. That’s the kind of harm I received. Now it must have gone up. These posts generate revenue for him. Please check out his channel’s ads,” Sibal continued. Mangal is also using ANI’s registered trademark, Sibal argued. According to him, in order to make sure that ANI’s trademark is not being violated, the plaintiff is requesting that these posts be removed and that no more posts of a similar nature be uploaded.
Sibal further argued that, in relation to the plaintiff, he is also requesting a John Doe prayer over content posted by anonymous entities. “This is all spiralling” Sibal stated, pointing to specific URLs. Mohak Mangal was ordered by ANI to pay 40 lakh annually for a license.
Mohak Mangal’s Defense
Senior barrister Chander Lall, who appeared on Mangal’s behalf, contended, “What does my channel say? that someone is extorting you. They are not licensed. I’m not violating anyone. They claim that you must pay me 40 lakh annually for the license. Next, they mention two years. I channeled it under the third strike on YouTube. YouTube is where I write. I’m trapped if my channel is blocked. Then I have to pay. I can avoid going to court. YouTube is where I write.
For Mangal, advocate Nakul Gandhi also made an appearance. “I agree that you don’t have to take license,” the court added at this point. Have you written to him? You wish to utilize videos but don’t want to obtain a license? The court remarked, “Then use, but why do you come out with these statements?” in response to Lall’s affirmative response. How do you explain? Lall, however, argued that copyright violation was legitimate, but that ANI could not call Mangal and “extort money from” him by threatening to “block the channel if you don’t pay.” The court responded, “YouTube is permitting strikes, right? Let’s get this over with.
You present your argument. Lall argued that ANI is not entitled to a license. Is the demand made by ANI considered extortion? “Let’s say their demand is wrong, you’ll call it extortion?” the court said. Lall retorted that the message was not extortion but rather that “your channel will be blocked.” Lall continued, “He writes to YouTube…. Till date they (ANI) have not taken injunction against me for copyright” .
The court inquired as to whether Mangal was making money from the videos. Lall said that it was news reporting at this point and that ANI needed to prove infringement. However, the court stated verbally that “You confine yourself to defamation” Lall argued that the current situation will not give rise to a trademark infringement lawsuit. In response, the court stated that it has a right to be concerned about disparagement, and these videos appear to be derogatory. Lall then requested that the court review the general structure and the video that Mangal had posted. Mangal’s “Dear ANI” YouTube video, which currently has 5.5 million views, is the subject of the lawsuit. For posting Mangal’s video on their X Corp (formerly Twitter) accounts, the lawsuit also names comedian Kunal Kamra, AltNews co-founder Mohammed Zubair, and unidentified businesses (John does) as defendants.
In his YouTube video, Mangal claimed in the lawsuit that ANI was holding people hostage and engaging in extortion and blackmail in an attempt to enforce its copyright over its published information. The statement goes on to say that Mangal has urged everyone to stop using all of ANI’s services. According to ANI, Mangal purposefully distorted conversations with ANI in his video, including by utilizing artificial intelligence algorithms, in order to disparage and harm the news organization and its staff.
According to the lawsuit, the contested video is a “calculated and malicious attack” on ANI’s credibility, character, and goodwill, as well as its registered trademarks.
