On January 29, 2026, the Court of the III Additional District and Sessions Judge at Sangareddy delivered a significant judgment in the case of PURE Energy Private Limited vs. M. Prabhakar Aditya (O.S. No. 78 of 2024). The court decreed a recovery of Rs. 50,00,000 (INR 50 Lakhs) in damages in favor of PURE Energy, marking a decisive victory for emerging startup brands against the rising tide of digital extortion and malicious misinformation campaigns orchestrated by social media influencers.
Judicial Findings: Protecting the Right to Reputation
Presiding Judge Smt. G. Sunitha Ravindra Reddy emphasized that the right to reputation is a fundamental right protected under the Constitution of India. The court found that the defendant, Mr. Aditya Prabhakar (known as “EV TraxelXP”), resident of Ongole, Andhra Pradesh, caused:
- “Immense loss of reputation”
- “Irreparable loss which cannot be compensated”
The court observed that the defendant, preying on the assumption that the legal system is slow, remained ex-parte (absent) during the proceedings, failing to contest the evidence provided by PURE Energy.
This evidence included:
- Snapshots of defamatory comments
- Copies of emails
- The deceptive videos themselves
The Verdict: Financial and Legal Redress
The court ruled entirely in favor of PURE Energy, granting the following reliefs:
| Relief Granted | Description |
|---|---|
| Damages | Rs. 50,00,000/- for defamation and loss of reputation |
| Legal Costs | Rs. 73,383/- to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff |
| Permanent Injunction | Restraining the defendant from using or defaming the plaintiff’s trademark |
| Mandatory Injunction | Requiring the removal of all defamatory material/comments/videos from the internet |
Additional Court Directions
Beyond the financial penalty, the court issued a mandatory injunction requiring:
- Immediate takedown of all scandalous and derogatory content
- A public apology in both national newspapers and across the defendant’s social media platforms
- A permanent restraint on the misuse or dilution of the PURE EV trademark and designs
The Calculated Defamation Campaign
The court’s findings highlighted a deliberate attempt to tarnish PURE Energy’s reputation through a YouTube video titled:
“One Company Destroyed the EV Industry | Poor EV | Real Face”
The defendant’s tactics included:
1. Trademark Infringement
Shrewdly replacing the registered trademark “PURE EV” with “POOR EV” to escape liability while ensuring the audience identified the target.
2. Malicious Fabrication
Using morphed images and pasting PURE Energy’s logo onto competitor vehicles that had caught fire to falsely represent the plaintiff’s products as unsafe and defective.
3. Baseless Allegations
Claiming “Poor Build Quality” despite PURE Energy’s vehicles conforming to the best standards, solely to extort money from the brand.
4. Contradictory Conduct
The influencer initially enjoyed positive engagement on his YouTube channel due to the brand. The court noted that the defendant had previously praised the vehicles’ comfort and mileage during his 30-day Kashmir to Kanyakumari journey on a PURE EV, yet later claimed 30 out of 100 vehicles were defective without any evidence, a statement found to be made with:
“Mal-intent to demean and devalue the goodwill” of the brand.
Significance for the Startup Ecosystem
This judgment serves as a landmark precedent for the Indian startup ecosystem. It sends a clear message to influencers and digital content creators that freedom of expression does not grant a license for:
- Trademark infringement
- Extortion
- Dissemination of false narratives
For brands like PURE Energy — which has over 90,000 satisfied users and a strong record as a service-oriented EV brand — this verdict validates their commitment to quality and provides a robust legal shield against “social media trials” intended to sabotage hard-earned goodwill.
The decision reinforces that the Indian judiciary remains a potent check against those who attempt to leverage digital platforms for predatory business practices.
Ranu Bairagi