Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by the San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining the defendants, who are social media influencers and have posted videos on YouTube and/ or Instagram regarding the plaintiff and one of its products, alleging infringement of trade marks, defamation, disparagement and unfair trade practices. Amit Bansal, J., held that the plaintiff has failed to show that the defences of ‘truth’ and ‘fair comment’ put up by the defendants are palpably false and/or are bound to fail at the stage of trial as well as on a prima facie view, the plaintiff has also failed to make out a case for disparagement against the defendants as it cannot be said that the contents of the impugned videos are false or misleading or have been made in a malicious manner with an objective to cause damage or injury to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff is a company engaged in the sale and marketing of nutraceutical and healthcare supplements, including whey proteins and amino acids, under the registered brand DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE. The plaintiff has operated through its predecessors since 2018 and claims market leadership. Its products are manufactured via third parties, with nutritional information provided by the manufacturers. The plaintiff’s products are approved by the FSSAI and are available across offline and online platforms. Defendant 1 is a social media influencer with a huge following on social media platforms such as YouTube and Instagram. The defendant 1 claims to be a personal trainer certified from American Council of Exercise and a sports science nutritionist certified from K-11 School of Fitness Science.
In mid-2022, plaintiff’s sales began declining, especially for its product ISO PRO. The investigations revealed that several social media influencers, namely defendants had posted critical videos on platforms like YouTube and Instagram. These videos, based on lab reports or commentary, alleged that the ISO PRO protein content was significantly less than what was advertised. D1, a certified personal trainer and sports nutritionist, claimed that he independently ordered and tested the plaintiff’s products at NABL-accredited labs. These reports indicated lower protein and higher carbohydrate content than declared. He shared these findings in videos, adding disclaimers and calling for consumer awareness.
D2 and D3 relied on D1’s findings without conducting independent tests. D4 used a DIY kit by Muscle Blaze (a competitor) and simultaneously promoted competitor products without disclosures. Upon discovering these videos, the plaintiff linked the declining sales directly to the impugned videos and filed the present commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants. The plaintiff alleged trademark infringement, defamation, disparagement and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff also moved an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC. In response, D1 filed an interim application seeking rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 and return of plaint under Order VII Rule 10 CPC on grounds of limitation and lack of commercial jurisdiction.
On the aspect of limitation and maintainability, the Court noted that the suit, being composite, was not barred by limitation. The Court cited Ajay Agarwal v. Ibni8 Media, 2020 SCC OnLine Del 606 and observed that continued availability of videos constitutes a continuing cause of action under Section 22 of the Limitation Act. It qualified as a commercial suit under Section 2(1)(c)(xvii) of the Commercial Courts Act due to issues concerning trademark infringement and product disparagement.
The Court watched the videos and noted D1 relied on three lab reports (from VAL, MTL, and Eurofins), all from NABL-accredited labs. The impugned videos included clear disclaimers and did not promote competitor brands overtly (except D4). The plaintiff did not produce any counter-lab report to challenge D1’s findings, and its objections on FSSAI approval were held insufficient at the interim stage.
The Court noted that the impugned video of defendant 1 is of about one minute and is posted as a YouTube Shorts, wherein the defendant no.1 names seven protein powder brands in a satirical manner and terms them as ‘7 worst protein powder brand’. In particular, he referred to the plaintiff’s brand DOCTOR’S CHOICE as ‘DOCTOR HAS NO CHOICE’. While collectively referring to three of these brands, including that of the plaintiff, he uses the word ‘ghatiya’. He suggests that the aforesaid three brands are extremely popular on account of the companies owning those brands hiring YouTube influencers to heavily promote their products on various social media platforms.
Applying the Bonnard v. Perryman, [1891] 95 All ER 965 principle and Bloomberg v. Zee Entertainment, (2025) 1 SCC 741 the Court reaffirmed that pre-trial injunctions in defamation should be sparingly granted. Truth and fair comment are legitimate defenses; interim relief should be refused unless the defense is bound to fail. The Court accepted D1’s conduct as falling under the realm of fair comment and public interest journalism. The Court distinguished between the torts: defamation protects reputation; disparagement protects economic interest. Thus, the plaintiff failed to prove malice or falsity in D1’s comments, an essential ingredient in disparagement.
D2 and D3 merely echoed D1’s findings without verification, thus, the Court found their content problematic but deferred consideration until trial. D4 used a DIY test kit of a competitor and promoted discount codes, raising conflict of interest. However, due to lack of response from D4, relief was deferred.
The Court held that the plaintiff has also not been able to establish a prima facie case for infringement of trademarks/ copyright against the defendants. The balance of convenience would also be in favor of the defendants and granting an interim injunction would be to their prejudice as it would result in putting fetters on their right to freedom of speech and expression guaranteed under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and would also deprive the right of the public at large to receive information on matters of health.
[San Nutrition Private Limited v. Arpit Mangal, I.A. 29793/2024 & I.A. 36110/2024 IN + CS(COMM) 420/2024, decided on 28-04-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Mr. J. Sai Deepak, Senior Advocate with Ms. Kangan Roda, Mr. Tanishq Sharma, Mr. R. Abhishek, Mr. Sarthak Sharma and Mr. Chirantan Priyadarshan, Advocates for petitioner
Mr. Ramchandra Madan and Mr. Tushar Nigam, Advocates for D-1 Ms. Aishwarya Kane, Mr. Sauhard Alung and Mr. Shuvam Bhattacharya, Advocates for D-5 Mr. Yash Karunakaran, Mr. Vishwajeet Deshmukh and Ms. A. Mehra, Advocates for D-6. Mr. Aditya Gupta and Mr. Varun Pathak, Amici Curiae.
Buy Constitution of India HERE
