Parody or Infringement ? The Legal and Ethical Storm Over ”Mia – G”

By Vikrant Rana and Shilpi Saurav Sharan

In January 2025, an Instagram Reel featuring the face of former adult film actress Mia Khalifa painted over the iconic Parle-G biscuit packaging triggered a storm of debate across Indian social media and legal circles. Created by artist Laxmi Narayan Sahu, the video reimagined the legacy brand as “Mia-G,” mimicking Parle-G’s distinctive logo, packaging, font, and colour palette. Though intended as satire, the unmistakable resemblance to the original design ignited a public and legal conversation on the limits of parody, fair use, and digital monetisation.

The video amassed nearly 70 million views in less than a month, catapulting Sahu into viral stardom. This instance has sparked pressing questions:

• Is it lawful or ethical to use another brand’s intellectual property for entertainment or satire?
• At what point does parody morph into commercial infringement?
• How should Indian IP law respond when viral content risks eroding hard-earned brand goodwill?

These questions are not confined to a single meme. They reflect a broader trend in the influencer and creator economy, where humorous, satirical, or aesthetic references to famous brands drive digital engagement, often with underlying commercial intent.

The Rise of Influencer Monetisation: Where IP Meets Income

The exponential growth of the creator economy has redefined how individuals earn online. Influencers are no longer just entertainers; they are entrepreneurs building monetizable audiences. Viral content that references recognisable brands often acts as a springboard to:

Even when content is not directly monetised, influencers may gain followers, engagement, and visibility, ultimately converting virality into financial opportunities.

The Economics of Influence: How Much Do Top Creators Earn?

India’s influencer marketing industry is projected to hit ₹3,375 crore (US$ 404.82 million) by 2026, growing at 18% CAGR.[1]

 

Top Indian Influencers and Their Earnings

 

Top Global Influencers (2024 Forbes Creators List)

According to Forbes’ 2024 Top Creators List, the top 50 influencers earned $720 million in total, commanding a combined audience of over 2.7 billion across YouTube, TikTok, and Instagram.[2]

In this context, the “MiaG” case is not merely a question of artistic expression; it is about commercial freeloading, whether creators should be allowed to ride the coattails of iconic trademarks without consent.

Precedents: Influencer Liability for Trademark Misuse

1. Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet Bhansali[3]
   In this landmark case, Marico Ltd., the manufacturer of Parachute coconut oil, sued YouTuber Abhijeet Bhansali, known as “Bearded Chokra”, for a video that criticised the quality of their product. The video claimed that Parachute oil had a strong, foul odour and contained impurities visible when frozen.Court Observations:
   • Commercial Intent and Financial Gain: The Bombay High Court found that Bhansali had monetised the impugned video via YouTube ads and affiliate links promoting rival products such as “Pure & Sure” organic coconut oil. This monetisation rendered his content commercial, not purely personal.
   • Higher Responsibility of Influencers: The court held that influencers with significant reach have a duty to maintain a degree of truthfulness in their statements, emphasising:“A social media influencer… bears a higher burden to ensure there is a degree of truthfulness in his statements.”
   • Impact on Brand Reputation: The statements were found to be disparaging and malicious, causing reputational damage to Marico’s brand.

   Outcome: The court granted interim relief, restraining Bhansali from publishing or circulating the video or any similar disparaging content.

2. Dabur India Ltd. v. Dhruv Rathee[4] In 2023, Dabur filed a suit against YouTuber Dhruv Rathee for a video that critiqued packaged fruit juices, including Dabur’s “Real” juice. The video advised viewers to avoid such products and not give them to children.

   
   Images from the Video

   Court Observations:

   • Trademark Infringement: Despite the partial blurring of Dabur’s logo, the Calcutta High Court held that repeated references to “Real” juice amounted to infringement under Section 29(9) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
   • Unauthorised Use of Copyrighted Content: Rathee’s use of Dabur’s promotional slides without permission was deemed a violation of the Copyright Act, 1957.
   • Balance of Convenience: The court found that Dabur had made a strong prima facie case and that interim protection was necessary to avoid reputational harm.

   Outcome: Rathee was directed to remove all references to “Real” from the video. The court also prohibited him from using Dabur’s trademark, logo, label, or packaging in any form, warning that non-compliance could result in a platform-level takedown.

3. Zydus Wellness Ltd. v. Prashant Desai[5]In 2024, Zydus Wellness sued social media influencer Prashant Desai for videos alleging that its nutrition drink “Complan” was unsafe for children.Images from the VideoCourt Observations:
   • Lack of Expertise: The court noted that Desai had no formal qualifications in nutrition or medicine. It held that being an influencer does not grant authority to make unverified claims about health products.
   • False and Misleading Statements: The court found Desai’s claims to be unsubstantiated and demonstrably false, stating: “The said contents/statements made by the defendant therein are nothing short of being false, which is writ large.”
   • Direct Targeting: The court took issue with the fact that Desai explicitly named and criticised Complan without adequate scientific backing.

   Outcome: The Delhi High Court directed Desai to take down the videos and restrained him from making further disparaging statements without substantive evidence.

Ferrari S.p.A. v. Philipp Plein (Court of Genoa, Italy, 2019)

In this case, German fashion designer Philipp Plein posted images on social media showcasing his sneakers placed atop Ferrari cars, accompanied by promotional messages. Ferrari sued for unauthorised use of its trademarks.

Court Findings:

• Unauthorised Use: The court held that Plein had used Ferrari’s trademarks without permission, constituting infringement.
• Commercial Intent: Rejecting Plein’s defence that the posts reflected his lifestyle, the court concluded they were clearly promotional in nature and designed to link his products with Ferrari’s brand image.
• Dilution by Tarnishment: The court also found that the use of Ferrari’s brand in provocative promotional content tarnished its reputation.

Implications: The court emphasised that even lifestyle-oriented content can cross into commercial infringement when brand associations are used without consent to promote a product or persona.

Conclusion

The “Mia G” parody, while arguably intended as satire, highlights the evolving complexities of brand representation in the digital era. Viral content that imitates iconic designs, such as Parle-G’s recognizable packaging, inevitably intersects with the brand equity built over decades. While such mimicry may be viewed by some as harmless or creative expression, it also opens up discussions around brand dilution, consumer perception, and the boundaries of fair use. As influencer driven content continues to shape public discourse and marketing trends, finding a balance between creativity and brand respect remains an ongoing and nuanced conversation.

Huda Jafri, Associate Advocate at S.S.Rana & Co. has assisted in the research of this article.

[1] https://www.ibef.org/blogs/the-rising-trend-of-influencer-marketing-in-india-key-insights-and-strategies

[2] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevenbertoni/2024/10/28/top-creators-2024-the-influencers-turning-buzz-into-billions/

[3]Marico Ltd. v. Abhijeet Bhansali, Interim Application No. 1 of 2020 in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 31 of 2020 in Notice of Motion No. 1094 of 2019 in COMIP No. 596 of 2019

[4] Dabur India Ltd. v. Dhruv Rathee, 2024 SCC OnLine Cal 6114

[5] Zydus Wellness Ltd. v. Prashant Desai, CS(COMM) 684/2024