Source: Delhi High Court 

Why in News? 

A bench of Justice Amit Bansal refused to grant injunction against social media influencers on the ground of alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement.   

• The Delhi High Court held this in the case of San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and others (2025). 

What was the Background of San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal and Others (2025) Case?   

• The plaintiff is a company engaged in the business of selling and marketing various nutraceutical and healthcare supplement products including protein powders and other supplements. 
• The plaintiff began marketing and selling dietary and nutritional supplement products in 2018 under the trade marks DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE and other related marks. 
• The plaintiff claims to be a market leader in the dietary and nutritional supplements industry with products designed by international researchers and approved by the Food Safety and Standards Authority of India (FSSAI). 
• The plaintiff has registered the trademark with effect from 16th November 2018, and has applied for registration of several other DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE formative marks. 
• The plaintiff sells its products through various channels including its website, mobile app, offline retailers, and e-commerce platforms like Amazon and Flipkart. 
• The plaintiff's sales reached Rs. 18,85,00,000/- in 2023-24, with advertising and promotional expenses of Rs. 1,71,00,000/- in the same year. 
• Defendants 1 to 4 are YouTubers/influencers who create and upload content about health supplements and related products on platforms like YouTube and Instagram. 
• The plaintiff noticed a sharp decline in sales after September 2022, which they attribute to disparaging videos uploaded by the defendants about their product DC DOCTOR'S CHOICE ISO PRO. 
• Between December 2023 and February 2024, the plaintiff analyzed these videos and found they contained baseless and incorrect information about their product. 
• The plaintiff alleges that the defendants are taking advantage of their brand reputation to gain views and popularity and are possibly sponsored by competitors. 
• The plaintiff lodged complaints with Google on 28th March 2024, requesting removal of the videos, but Google refused on 29th March 2024, stating they cannot adjudicate the veracity of posts and do not remove videos based on defamation allegations. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court held that the plaintiff was responsible for any false claims in their products, including nutritional information on labels, even if manufacturing is done by a third party, especially when sold under the plaintiff's marks. 
• The defendant in this case appears entitled to the defense of fair comment because their videos aim to educate consumers about discrepancies in protein content claims. 
• The Court viewed the defendant's comments as honest opinions based on sufficient factual evidence from accredited laboratory test reports. 
• The Court further observed that the subject matter (fitness and nutrition products) is considered a matter of public interest as it affects consumers' health and well-being. 
• The court disagreed that using the term "ghatiya" (meaning sub-standard/inferior) constitutes unparliamentary or defamatory language, viewing it as permissible exaggeration or hyperbole. 
• Satirical references like "DOCTOR HAS NO CHOICE" for the plaintiff's mark "DOCTOR'S CHOICE" are protected under the right to freedom of speech and expression. 
• The court found the plaintiff's reliance on ASCI Guidelines for Health Influencers misplaced, as the defendant based opinions on factual laboratory test results. 
• The Court reiterated that commercial speech is protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution as established in the case of Tata Press v. Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (1995) case. 
• For disparagement to be established, three elements must be proven: untrue/misleading statements, malice, and special damage to the plaintiff. 
• The Court found that the defendant established defenses of "truth" and "fair comment," while the plaintiff failed to establish malice or that sales decline was attributable to the videos. 
• Trademark infringement under Section 29(4) applies only when another commercial entity exploits the plaintiff's trademark, which was not the case here. 
• Section 29(8) regarding trademark infringement in advertising was found inapplicable as the defendants were not using the plaintiff's marks as part of an advertisement. 
• Thus, the Court refused to grant relief in favor of the plaintiffs in the facts of the present case. 

What is Defamation? 

• Defamation is when someone makes a statement that damages another person's reputation. 
• Defamation can take the form of spoken words, written statements, or even videos. 
• A statement is considered defamatory if it lowers someone's reputation in the eyes of other people. 
• Not all defamatory statements can lead to legal action, as there are certain defenses available. 
• The first defense is truth or justification, which means if the statement can be proven true, it is not actionable defamation. 
• The second defense is fair comment, which protects honest opinions on matters of public interest that are based on true facts. 
  • In the case of Ram Jethmalani v. Subramaniam Swamy (2006), the Court has observed that in order to succeed in a plea of fair comment, the defendant has to establish the following: 
    • The statement was a comment based on facts, which are sufficiently true. 
    • The subject matter of the comment was in public interest. 
    • The comment was one which an honest person could form. 
  • Unlike the defence of justification or truth, malice would be a relevant factor to be considered while dealing with the defence of fair comment. 
  • Therefore, in a given case, if the court is of the view that the statements made by the defendant are such that he believed them to be correct on the basis of facts available to him, the defendant would be entitled to invoke the defence of fair comment 
  • The defendant should clearly differentiate between a factual statement and a comment in a manner that the listener/ viewer/ reader is able to know that the statement is the personal opinion of the defendant 
  • If the defendant knows that his comments are based on untrue facts or are made without any attempt to determine the truth, it would be assumed that the comments were made with malice. 
• The third defense is privilege, which protects statements made in certain situations such as in court testimony, parliamentary speeches, or other contexts where public policy encourages open communication. 

What is Disparagement? 

• Disparagement is a type of malicious falsehood that protects a person's economic interests rather than their reputation. 
• Disparagement occurs when someone makes untrue or misleading statements about a plaintiff's goods or services that influence the public not to buy those goods or use those services. 
• In disparagement cases, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that the defendant's statements were false, unlike in defamation cases. 
• This difference in burden of proof exists because defamation protects personal reputation while disparagement protects economic interests. 
• Malice is an inherent element in disparagement suits because the cause of action is based on making false statements to damage the plaintiff's goods or services. 
• A statement made with a genuine belief in its truth would negate the claim of malice in a disparagement case. 
• For malice to be actionable, it must involve dishonesty or improper motive, including a subjective state of mind with ill will or an intention to injure. 
• A person defending their own lawful business interests may not be accused of malice, even if they know their actions might cause damage to others. 
• A trader's desire to promote their business at the expense of rivals is considered a proper exercise of discretion and not malicious.

What is Trademark Infringement in Context of this Case? 

• Section 29 (8) of the Trademark Act, 1999 (TMA) must be considered in the facts of the present case. 
• This provision provides for the following: 
  • A registered trade mark is infringed when advertising of that trade mark takes unfair advantage and contradicts honest practices in industrial or commercial matters. 
  • Infringement also occurs when advertising is detrimental to the distinctive character of the registered trade mark. 
  • Advertising that damages the reputation of the registered trade mark constitutes infringement as well.