Introduction and Context
This case concerns the rising influence of social media influencers in India and their dual role as brand promoters and consumer watchdogs. The lawsuit arises from the tension between influencers’ freedom of expression and the rights of businesses to protect their reputation. San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. (the plaintiff), a company selling nutraceutical products under the trademark "DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE," has filed a suit for permanent injunction against several influencers, alleging defamation, trademark infringement, product disparagement, and unfair trade practices through videos posted on YouTube and Instagram.
Plaintiff’s Allegations
San Nutrition claims that its ISO PRO whey protein product was wrongly targeted in videos by the defendants, who are influencers. These videos allegedly misrepresented the nutritional content of the product using questionable testing methods and thereby misled consumers. The plaintiff contends that the videos have caused a significant drop in sales and have harmed the brand’s reputation. The plaintiff also alleges that these influencers have a vested interest in promoting rival brands and violated ASCI (Advertising Standards Council of India) guidelines by failing to disclose sponsorships.
Defendant No.1’s Defense (Arpit Mangal)
The defendant claimed to have conducted independent lab tests on the plaintiff’s products, which allegedly revealed discrepancies in the stated and actual protein content. Asserting his right to freedom of speech, he maintained that his videos served public interest and were based on scientific data from accredited labs. He invoked the defenses of truth and fair comment, arguing his intention was to inform the public about potential quality issues in the fitness supplement industry.
Legal Issues and Applications
Two applications were central:
-
Plaintiff's request for interim injunction (I.A. 29793/2024) to restrain the publication of the allegedly defamatory content.
-
Defendant’s application (I.A. 36110/2024) under Order VII Rule 10 and 11 CPC to reject/return the plaint, arguing the case was barred by limitation and lacked jurisdiction.
Court's Ruling on Maintainability
The court rejected the defendant’s plea that the suit was time-barred, holding that since the defamatory content remained accessible online, each view constituted fresh publication, thereby creating a continuing cause of action. It also ruled that the case fell within the ambit of a commercial dispute under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 due to its intellectual property and economic implications.
Interim Injunction and Legal Principles
The court applied principles from Indian and foreign jurisprudence, notably the "Bonnard v. Perryman" rule, which discourages pre-trial injunctions in defamation suits unless the defense is bound to fail. It found that since the defendant had produced lab reports and the plaintiff failed to submit counter-reports, the defense of truth could not be dismissed summarily.
Balancing Fundamental Rights
The court emphasized the need to balance Article 19(1)(a) (freedom of speech), Article 21 (right to reputation), and the public’s right to know. It recognized that influencer speech could be "commercial" if it was revenue-driven or affiliated with competing brands, but also acknowledged the growing legitimacy of critical content in the digital age.
Final Decision on Interim Relief
The court denied the plaintiff’s request for interim injunction, holding that the defendant had a credible defense based on truth and fair comment supported by lab evidence. However, it left open the possibility for the plaintiff to prove its claims during the trial.
Conclusion
The court reiterated that social media criticism backed by evidence, even if commercially motivated, does not automatically amount to defamation or trademark infringement. Businesses must be prepared to withstand scrutiny, especially when no prima facie case of malice or falsity is proven. The matter will proceed to full trial for detailed adjudication.
Case Details
Case Title: San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors.
Date of Order: 28 April 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 420/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2973
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal
