The case involving San Nutrition Pvt. Ltd. centers around allegations made against social media influencers who criticized its product, ISO PRO protein powder. The company claimed that the influencers engaged in trademark infringement, defamation, product disparagement, and unfair trade practices.
The defendants included several social media influencers, notably D1, a certified personal trainer and sports nutritionist. D1 independently sent the product for testing to NABL-accredited labs, which reportedly revealed lower protein content and higher carbohydrates than claimed. This led D1 to create videos urging consumer awareness. Other influencers, referred to as D2 to D4, echoed D1’s sentiments, with D4 promoting rival brands without clear disclosure.
The Delhi High Court stated that the videos, particularly those from D1, were protected under the defenses of truth and fair comment. The court concluded that D1 based his claims on legitimate lab results and included disclaimers. The content was neither false nor malicious, qualifying it as fair comment and a matter of public interest.
Legally, defamation pertains to harming an individual's reputation, whereas product disparagement targets the economic interests of a product or brand. For a disparagement claim, the plaintiff must prove the statement was false, malicious, and intended to cause economic harm. The Court found that such evidence was insufficient in this case.
The Court denied the request for an interim injunction against the influencers, stating that such action would infringe upon their freedom of speech and expression as protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution. The court discouraged pre-trial censorship in cases of defamation or criticism unless the defense is evidently weak.
Trademark infringement allegations were also dismissed because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the influencers had misused their trademarks in a misleading manner or harmed the brand's reputation legally. Simply mentioning a brand in commentary does not automatically constitute infringement.
This ruling reinforces the idea that informed and honest criticism, even if negative, is legally protected. Influencers who responsibly critique products in the public interest, especially with disclaimers and supporting evidence, are shielded under Indian law.
The court confirmed that the ongoing availability of the videos meant the cause of action was still valid, thus not barred by limitation. The case was classified as a commercial suit under the Commercial Courts Act, given the trademark and trade practices involved.
The Delhi High Court did not issue an interim injunction, stressing the importance of free speech and public interest. The plaintiff failed to prove falsity or malice, and while the trial continues, no restrictions were placed on the influencers' ability to publish or retain the videos. As the court stated, “A free society is not one where speech never offends, but where truth can stand unafraid of criticism.”
Q1. What are the main allegations against the influencers in the San Nutrition case?
Answer: The allegations include trademark infringement, defamation, and product disparagement due to their critical reviews of the ISO PRO protein powder based on lab test results.
Q2. How did the Delhi High Court view the influencers' videos?
Answer: The Court protected the videos under the defenses of truth and fair comment, stating they were based on valid lab results and were not malicious.
Q3. What is the difference between defamation and product disparagement?
Answer: Defamation affects personal reputation, while product disparagement targets economic interests. The plaintiff must prove falsity and malice in disparagement cases.
Q4. Did the Court impose restrictions on the influencers' content?
Answer: No, the Court refused to grant an interim injunction, emphasizing the importance of free speech and the lack of proven malice or falsity.
Q5. What are the implications of this case for online influencers?
Answer: The case reinforces that honest, data-backed criticism is protected under law, allowing influencers to freely express opinions in the public interest.
Question 1: What was the main allegation against the influencers in the San Nutrition case?
A) Trademark infringement
B) Product endorsement
C) False advertising
D) None of the above
Correct Answer: A
Question 2: How did the Delhi High Court characterize the influencers' videos?
A) As defamatory
B) As fair comment
C) As misleading
D) As irrelevant
Correct Answer: B
Kutos : AI Assistant!
