SAN NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED [Plaintiff] Vs. ARPIT MANGAL AND OTHERS [Defendants]
CS (COMM) 420/2024
(CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL)
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of San Nutrition Private Limited, which had filed a lawsuit alleging defamation, trademark infringement, and product disparagement against four social media influencers. The influencers — Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy — had posted YouTube videos reviewing San Nutrition’s dietary supplement product, “Doctor’s Choice Iso Pro.” The videos criticized the product based on independent laboratory reports, claiming it contained significantly less protein and more carbohydrates than stated on the label. One video even labeled the product as the “worst protein powder brand” and used the term “ghatiya” (meaning sub-standard).
San Nutrition argued that these reviews were defamatory and damaged its brand reputation. However, the influencers contended that their videos were protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, which guarantees freedom of speech. Arpit Mangal, in particular, defended his statements as being based on due diligence and scientific evidence. He asserted that his content aimed to educate consumers and promote informed decision-making in matters of public health.
Justice Amit Bansal, who presided over the case, ruled that San Nutrition had not challenged the authenticity of the lab results but only questioned the credibility of the labs for not being FSSAI registered. The Court observed that the reliability of the lab reports could only be evaluated during a full trial and not at the interim stage. Therefore, the Court found it inappropriate to dismiss the influencers’ claims solely based on the labs’ non-FSSAI status.
The Court also supported the influencers’ defence of fair comment, stating that the videos appeared to be made in good faith to inform consumers, including vulnerable groups such as diabetics and athletes. It emphasized that the comments made were based on a “sufficient factual basis” — the lab reports — and thus, prima facie did not amount to defamation. It further held that the term “ghatiya”, used in a colloquial sense to mean “inferior,” and the satirical remark “Doctor Has No Choice,” did not indicate malicious intent.
On the issue of trademark infringement, the Court ruled that the influencers did not use San Nutrition’s trademark “Doctor’s Choice” in a commercial manner or for promoting their own goods. Their references were strictly in the context of product review, which does not constitute use “in the course of trade” under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore, the influencers did not violate trademark laws.
In conclusion, the Court stated that granting an injunction would unjustifiably restrict the influencers’ constitutional right to freedom of speech and deprive the public of relevant information on health products.
The balance of convenience favoured the influencers, and San Nutrition’s plea for a temporary injunction was dismissed. The judgment reaffirmed the legal protection for honest, evidence-based criticism, especially in areas concerning public health and consumer awareness.
