{"id":3057,"date":"2025-05-08T11:38:00","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T06:08:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/?p=3057"},"modified":"2025-05-08T11:38:00","modified_gmt":"2025-05-08T06:08:00","slug":"delhi-hc-upholds-influencers-right-to-criticize-health-products-based-on-lab-reports-rejects-san-nutritions-injunction-plea","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/delhi-hc-upholds-influencers-right-to-criticize-health-products-based-on-lab-reports-rejects-san-nutritions-injunction-plea\/","title":{"rendered":"Delhi HC Upholds Influencers\u2019 Right to Criticize Health Products Based on Lab Reports, Rejects San Nutrition\u2019s Injunction Plea"},"content":{"rendered":"

SAN NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED<\/strong> [Plaintiff] Vs. <\/strong>ARPIT MANGAL AND OTHERS<\/strong> [Defendants]<\/h1>\n

CS (COMM) 420\/2024<\/p>\n

(CORAM: HON\u2019BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT BANSAL<\/strong>)<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

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 \u2014 Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy \u2014 had posted YouTube videos reviewing San Nutrition\u2019s dietary supplement product, \u201cDoctor\u2019s Choice Iso Pro.\u201d 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”<\/em> (meaning sub-standard).<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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\u2019 claims solely based on the labs\u2019 non-FSSAI status.<\/p>\n

The Court also supported the influencers’ defence of fair comment<\/em>, 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 \u201csufficient factual basis\u201d \u2014 the lab reports \u2014 and thus, prima facie did not amount to defamation. It further held that the term \u201cghatiya\u201d<\/em>, used in a colloquial sense to mean \u201cinferior,\u201d and the satirical remark \u201cDoctor Has No Choice,\u201d did not indicate malicious intent.<\/p>\n

On the issue of trademark infringement, the Court ruled that the influencers did not use San Nutrition\u2019s trademark \u201cDoctor\u2019s Choice\u201d 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 \u201cin the course of trade\u201d under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. Therefore, the influencers did not violate trademark laws.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

The balance of convenience favoured the influencers, and San Nutrition\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

SAN NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED [Plaintiff] Vs. ARPIT MANGAL AND OTHERS [Defendants] CS (COMM) 420\/2024 (CORAM: HON\u2019BLE 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 […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":3059,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-3057","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-judgement"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=3057"}],"version-history":[{"count":2,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":3061,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/3057\/revisions\/3061"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/3059"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=3057"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=3057"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xpertslegal.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=3057"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}