The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favor of San Nutrition Private Limited in its case against four social media influencers. The influencers had created videos featuring San Nutrition's 'Doctor's Choice' products, which the company claimed were defamatory, disparaging, and involved trademark infringement.
San Nutrition Private Limited sued influencers Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy over YouTube videos criticizing its Doctor's Choice products. The videos claimed the Iso Pro product contained less protein and more carbohydrates than advertised. The influencers argued their comments were based on lab results and fell under their right to free speech, with Mangal claiming his videos offered constructive criticism for public interest.
The Bench of Justice Amit Bansal observed, “It would be unreasonable to place restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before the full trial takes place; Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution; The use of hyperbole and exaggerated forms of speech or parody would not entitle the plaintiff to grant of interim injunction.”
The Court held that the defendants/influencers were entitled to the defense of 'fair comment' at the prima facie stage.
The Court observed “The essence of his videos is only to educate the consumers, who could also be diabetic patients, students or athletes, that the protein content in the plaintiff's product is much less than what is claimed and the carbohydrate is in excess of the claim made and to advise them to carefully examine and consider all factors before selecting any brand of protein powder for purchase. He encourages the consumers to conduct their own test before making a choice. The comments made by the defendant no.1, in my prima facie view, forms an honest opinion of the defendant no.1 based on 'sufficient factual basis', i.e., the aforesaid test reports from accredited laboratories.”
“The balance of convenience would also be in favour 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.” it added.
The Court concluded that a prima facie case of trademark infringement was not established and, with these observations, dismissed San Nutrition's plea for an ad-interim injunction.
Read Here: