Delhi High Court on Social media influencers, defamation, disparagement, and trade mark infringement.

SAN NUTRITION PRIVATE LIMITED …..Plaintiff

versus

ARPIT MANGAL AND OTHERS …..Defendants

a. Background and Key Issues
The Delhi High Court addressed a dispute between SAN Nutrition (plaintiff) and social media influencers (defendants) regarding alleged defamation, disparagement, and trade mark infringement. The plaintiff sought injunctions against videos criticizing its product, ISO PRO, while the defendants claimed protection under freedom of speech and expression.

b. Key Submissions

Plaintiff’s Claims:

• The defendants’ videos contained false claims about ISO PRO’s nutritional content, harming its reputation and sales.
• The videos infringed the plaintiff’s trade marks and copyright by using its brand name and packaging.

Defendants’ Defenses:

• The videos were based on laboratory tests showing discrepancies in ISO PRO’s claimed protein content.
• The defendants argued their statements were truthful and constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest (health and nutrition).

c. Court’s Analysis on Limitation and Jurisdiction
The defendant argued the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court rejected this, holding the suit involved multiple causes of action (defamation, disparagement, and trade mark infringement), falling under the limitation period of 3 years. The court also affirmed jurisdiction under the Commercial Courts Act, as the dispute involved commercial interests and intellectual property.

d. Defamation and Defenses

Defense of Truth:

The defendants provided lab reports from accredited institutions showing ISO PRO’s protein content was lower than claimed. The plaintiff failed to rebut these findings.

The court held truth is a complete defense, even if the defendant acted with malice, per Ram Jethmalani v. Subramanian Swamy.

Defense of Fair Comment:

The defendants’ critiques were based on verifiable facts (lab reports) and addressed public health concerns.

The court cited Branson v. Bower, noting exaggerated language (e.g., “ghatiya”) does not negate fair comment.

e. Disparagement
The plaintiff failed to prove the defendants acted with malice or caused special damage, essential for disparagement claims (Dabur India v. Colortek Meghalaya). The court noted the defendants were not competitors, and their critiques were backed by evidence.

f. Trade Mark Infringement
The court rejected infringement claims, holding the defendants’ use of the plaintiff’s marks in reviews did not constitute “use in trade” under Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act. The videos were not advertisements but critiques (Greenpeace v. Tata Sons).

g. Interim Injunction Denial
Applying the Bonnard v. Perryman principle, the court refused an injunction, emphasizing the high threshold to restrict free speech. The defendants’ defenses were not “bound to fail,” and the public interest in health disclosures outweighed the plaintiff’s claims (Bloomberg TV v. Zee Entertainment).

h. Conclusion
The court dismissed the plaintiff’s applications, upholding the defendants’ right to free speech and expression. It emphasized the importance of balancing commercial reputation with public interest in health-related critiques. The judgment reinforces protections for honest criticism backed by factual evidence.

Edited & Reviewed by Neeraj Gogia, Advocate

Connect for legal enquiry:- 9891800100

advocateneerajgogia@gmail.com

#delhi #highcourt #defamation #disparagement #trademark #infringment #freespeech #expression #social #media #influencers