By Vikrant Rana and Shilpi Saurav Sharan
Introduction
At a time when influencer advertising, satire, and memes shape the digital landscape, the thin line between free expression, trademark protection, and brand reputation is blurrier than ever. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court’s decision in the recent case of San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. v. Arpit Mangal & Ors[1]., marks a pivotal moment in Indian jurisprudence on the issue of intersection of influencer speech, defamation, product disparagement, and trademark law. In this case, Hon’ble Justice Mr. Amit Bansal, while dismissing San Nutrition’s (Plaintiff) plea for an ex parte interim injunction against four influencers, upheld the fundamental rights to free expression and consumer awareness, while recognizing the defenses of truth, fair comment, and nominative use as prima facie valid. The ruling sets a robust precedent safeguarding evidence-based criticism in the public interest.
Factual Background
The Plaintiff, San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. is a company engaged in the business of healthcare supplement products under the trade marks ‘DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE’
, and ‘DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE ISO PRO’
, the proteins of the plaintiff are marketed with a claim of 83.87% protein content.
The Defendant, Arpit Mangal, and other influencers, posted critical videos on YouTube and Instagram, alleging that independent laboratory analyses by NABL-accredited facilities, VAL, Micro Tech Laboratory, and Eurofins revealed significantly lower protein content (around 45–52%) in the Plaintiffs protein products.
On knowledge of the said videos the Plaintiff filed a suit claiming defamation, product disparagement, and trademark infringement and sought an injunction to restrain further dissemination of the said videos. Given the free speech implications, the Court appointed Advocates Aditya Gupta and Varun Pathak as amici curiae.
Issues for Consideration
- Whether the statements made in the videos amounted to defamation under common law and Article 19(2) of the Constitution.
- Whether the videos constituted disparagement or malicious falsehood injurious to San Nutrition’s commercial reputation.
- Whether the use of the registered mark “Doctor’s Choice” constituted trademark infringement under Sections 29(4) and 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Whether an interim injunction could be granted in light of the Bonnard v. Perryman[2] doctrine that discourages gag orders before trial.
Submissions of the Parties
- Plaintiffs Submissions
The Plaintiff argued that the videos:- Contained defamatory and disparaging content, using terms like “ghatiya” (“inferior”), thereby harming their brand reputation.
- Infringed its trademark by displaying and referring to “Doctor’s Choice” in a negative context, allegedly constituting use “in the course of trade.”
- Violated Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI) Guidelines as the influencers were not professionally qualified to comment on nutritional content and had not disclosed any sponsorships.
- Defendants’ Submissions
The Defendants, in response, contended that:- The claims in the videos were backed by three independent, NABL-accredited lab reports.
- Their remarks constituted fair comment, honest opinion on matters of public interest permitted even when strongly worded or satirical.
- There was no malice or special damage, and the communication was made in public interest.
- The use of the mark was nominative and purely for identification in a non-commercial, review context, exempting it from infringement under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act.
Court’s Findings
- Defamation: Truth and Fair Comment
Hon’ble Justice Bansal observed that the lab reports formed a sound prima facie basis, and in the absence of any rebuttal from the Plaintiff, the truth defense could not be discarded. Relying on the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy[3], the Court noted that malice is irrelevant where truth is proven.
On fair comment, the Court applied a three-pronged test:
- Based on facts?
- On a matter of public interest?
- Expressed honestly?
The Court was of the view that the influencers’ content satisfied all criteria. Remarks such as “Doctor Has No Choice” were held to be satirical and not actionable.
- Disparagement: Lack of Malice and Damage
Applying the test laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in Dabur v. Colortek Meghalaya[4], which requires (i) falsity, (ii) malice, and (iii) special damage, the Court held that:- The statements were backed by credible lab data.
- There was no intent to injure or recklessness.
- No demonstrable loss in sales or goodwill had been shown.
Thus, the claim of commercial disparagement failed at the prima facie stage.
- Trademark Infringement: Non-commercial Use
The Court highlighted that Section 29(4) of the Trademark Act, 1999 required the use of the trademark in the course of trade. In this case, the Defendants’ use (including hashtags) does not relate to their own goods/services, but instead reviews the Plaintiff’s product, thereby indicating no direct commercial exploitation.
No commercial exploitation:
Citing Tata Sons v. Greenpeace[5], the Court reiterated that Section 29(4) was attracted only if the mark is exploited by another commercial or entrepreneurial entity. Here, the content was not found to be a commercial use of the mark.
Section 29(3) and 29(8) not applicable:
The Court was of the view that Section 29(3) is relevant only when the disputed use is part of an advertisement, which was not the case here.
Further, Section 29(8) also dealt with the use of a trademark in advertising in a manner that was detrimental to the mark’s distinctive character or reputation. Since the videos were not advertisements, sub-section (8) was also not applicable in the case.
The Court found that the mark “Doctor’s Choice” was used only to identify the product under critique. Since the influencers were not selling goods or services using the mark, this nominative use was not infringing.
Under Section 29(8), which addresses deceptive advertising, the Court held that independent review videos made without a commercial motive did not constitute “advertising.”
- Interim Injunction and Freedom of Speech
The Court referred to the case of Bonnard v. Perryman[6], where it was held that interim injunctions in defamation cases should be granted only in the clearest of circumstances, namely, where the defense raised by the defendant was bound to fail at trial. It was observed that pre-trial restraints on speech must be approached with exceptional caution, as they directly impact the right to free expression.
The Court also relied on Fraser v. Evans[7], where it was held that, “The court will not restrain the publication of an article, even though it is defamatory, when the defendant says he intends to justify it or to make fair comment on a matter of public interest.” The ruling underscored the principle that commentary on matters of public concern deserves robust legal protection, especially where defenses such as justification or fair comment are raised.
Further, the Court referred to Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment Enterprises Ltd.[8], where the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India warned against the rising trend of SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuits against Public Participation) suits. It was held that such suits are often initiated by economically powerful entities with the intent to suppress public criticism and deter participation in matters of public interest. The Court acknowledged that SLAPPs pose a significant threat to democratic discourse and emphasized the need for judicial restraint in granting interim relief in such contexts.
The Court held that gagging critical speech, particularly in the context of health and consumer safety, would violate Article 19(1)(a) and Article 21 of the Constitution.
Final Verdict
The Court denied interim injunction to the Plaintiff and observed that “the plaintiff has failed to show that the defenses of ‘truth’ and ‘fair comment’ put up by the defendants are palpably false and/ or are bound to fail at the stage of trial. On a prima facie view, the plaintiff has also failed to make out a case for disparagement”.
Influence or Infringement?
The San Nutrition case unfolds amid a growing wave of legal scrutiny surrounding influencers who misuse their digital reach under the veil of free speech and fair use. Several recent judgments underscore the evolving judicial stance:
In Reckitt Benckiser India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dr. Manjot Marwah & Ors.[9] the Court addressed a case where a medical influencer made allegedly misleading claims about Dettol products. The Court found the content to be misleading and directed the influencer to take corrective action. Read more
More recently, in Dabur India Ltd v. Dhruv Rathee & Ors.[10] digital creator Dhruv Rathee faced allegations of bias and brand-specific targeting. The case ended with the Court directing removal of specific references to Dabur’s products from the published content. Read more
Likewise, in Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Mr. Prashant Desai,[11] the Court found certain statements against the nutritional value of Complan to be prima facie disparaging and granted an interim injunction against further publication. Read more
These cases collectively highlight the fine balance between critique and commercial harm. While freedom of speech is a fundamental right, it does not license defamation, misrepresentation, or infringement.
Conclusion
The San Nutrition ruling sets a powerful precedent affirming that evidence-based commentary, even if strongly worded or satirical, is protected speech under Indian constitutional law. It clarifies that non-commercial reviewers who act in the public interest cannot be silenced through premature injunctions or speculative claims of reputational harm.
In recent times, with the proliferation of social media usage, influencers have been expressing their views on products, services, policies and as well as the recent India-Pak war news. This increased expression of view has indeed made protection of speech a balancing act. With the public sphere becoming participatory, the judgment reaffirms that truth, transparency, and honest opinion remain constitutionally enshrined pillars of democratic discourse.
Huda Jafri, Associate Advocate at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.
[1] San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Others, I.A. 29793/2024 & I.A. 36110/2024 IN + CS(COMM) 420/2024
[2] Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269 (CA)
[3] Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy, 2006 SCC OnLine Del 498
[4] Dabur India Ltd. v. Colortek Meghalaya Pvt. Ltd., 2009 SCC OnLine Del 4580
[5] Tata Sons v. Greenpeace, 2011 SCC OnLine Del 466
[6] Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 2 Ch 269 (CA)
[7] Fraser v. Evans [1969] 1 QB 349
[8] Bloomberg Television v. Zee Entertainment, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 426
[9] Reckitt Benckiser India (P) Ltd. v. Manjot Marwah, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3019
[10] Dabur India Ltd v. Dhruv Rathee & Ors., 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6114
[11] Zydus Wellness Products Ltd. v. Mr. Prashant Desai, CS(COMM) 684/2024