The Delhi High Court has declined to issue an interim injunction in favour of San Nutrition Pvt Ltd against four social media influencers who posted videos reviewing the company’s “Doctor’s Choice” protein supplements. The court ruled that the influencers’ content was based on laboratory test results and constituted fair comment made in public interest.
Background of the Case
San Nutrition Pvt Ltd, a company engaged in the sale of health supplements, approached the court claiming defamation, trademark infringement, and product disparagement. The complaint targeted influencers Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, and Avijit Roy. The influencers had posted YouTube and Instagram videos alleging that the company’s product "Doctor’s Choice Iso Pro" contained significantly less protein and more carbohydrates than advertised.
One video labeled the product as the "worst protein powder brand,” while another used the Hindi term “ghatiya” (meaning substandard). The influencers stated that their reviews were based on certified laboratory reports. Defendant Arpit Mangal argued that his comments were a precautionary public opinion, supported by independent test results, and were not meant to defame but to inform consumers.
Justice Amit Bansal noted:
“At a prima facie stage, the laboratory reports relied upon by the defendant cannot be disregarded only on account of the fact that the laboratories in question were not recognized by FSSAI.”
The Court clarified that while the credibility of these labs could be examined during trial, their reports couldn’t be dismissed outright at this preliminary stage.
The Court accepted the influencers’ defense of fair comment. It observed that the purpose of the videos was to educate consumers — including athletes and diabetic patients — about discrepancies between advertised and actual contents in the supplements.
“The comments made by the defendant, in my prima facie view, form an honest opinion based on sufficient factual basis, i.e., the laboratory reports from accredited labs.”
The court found the word ‘ghatiya’ not defamatory per se, noting that it simply translates to sub-standard or inferior. It added that even the satirical reference to the trademark “Doctor’s Choice” as “Doctor Has No Choice” was not necessarily malicious.
Addressing claims of trademark misuse, the court ruled that the influencers’ use of the mark was merely to review the product — not to promote competing goods. According to Section 29(4) of the Trade Marks Act, such non-commercial usage is not infringement.
The court emphasized that granting an injunction would impact the influencers’ freedom of speech and the public’s right to access truthful health information:
“Granting an interim injunction would result in putting fetters on the right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution and deprive the public of vital health-related information.”
Case title: San Nutrition Private Limited vs. Arpit Mangal & Ors
