'Ghatiya' Is Hyperbole, Not Defamation: HC Declines to Restrain Influencers' Criticism of Protein Supplement

Background: Dispute over Product Reviews and Brand Reputation

The dispute stems from videos posted by several social media influencers, including Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani, Avijit Roy and defendant no.1 Arpit Mangal, that questioned the quality of SAN Nutrition’s ISO PRO protein supplement. The plaintiff filed a civil suit alleging trademark infringement, defamation, and brand disparagement, claiming the videos had adversely impacted its reputation and sales.

According to the plaint:

“The plaintiff’s sale of its product under the mark DC DOCTOR’S CHOICE ISO PRO has spiralled downwards ever since the impugned videos surfaced on the internet… the impugned videos were brought to the notice of the plaintiff which were disparaging the plaintiff’s product and adversely affecting its business, goodwill and reputation.”

The titles of some of the videos included terms like “SCAM” and appeared on lists such as “7 Worst Protein Powder Brands,” which SAN Nutrition claimed were defamatory.

Petitioner’s Contention

SAN Nutrition contended that the influencers:

Used disparaging language like “ghatiya” (inferior),

Based their claims on unapproved DIY lab kits,

Had affiliations with competitor brands like MuscleBlaze, and

Infringed on their trademarks.

The plaintiff submitted that such actions amounted to trademark infringement, defamation, and unfair trade practices.

They also claimed that the labs used for testing were not certified by FSSAI and that the accusations were misleading. The plaintiff highlighted its strong market presence since 2018, substantial advertising investments, and Rs 18.85 crore annual revenue.

Respondents’ Stand: Informing Consumers and Exposing Discrepancies

Defendant No.1 Arpit Mangal defended the content, stating the purpose was public interest and consumer safety. He claimed the videos were based on actual lab-tested discrepancies between product label claims and tested nutritional values.

“The defendant no.1 is dedicated to the mission of verifying, auditing and reporting on the quality and safety of health products and supplements through stringent laboratory evaluations and aims to be a trustworthy source of news for fitness enthusiasts and professionals.”

The respondents further asserted that the suit was barred by the one-year limitation period for defamation and challenged the maintainability of the case as a commercial dispute. However, the court ruled that the suit contained multiple causes of action and was within limitation due to continuous online access to the videos.

Court's Observations: Truth, Fair Comment, and Satire Are Defenses

Justice Amit Bansal, in a detailed order, ruled in favor of the influencers, observing that the plaintiff had failed to make a prima facie case for defamation or disparagement.

“The plaintiff has not placed any material in justification of the claims made by it on the label of the plaintiff’s product with regard to nutritional information… Even if the plaintiff’s products are manufactured by a third-party, any false claim therein… would be the plaintiff’s responsibility.”

On the use of the term “ghatiya,” the Court remarked:

“In my view, the word ‘ghatiya’ would mean nothing more than ‘sub-standard’/ ‘inferior’ in English. In the opinion of the defendant no.1 based on the aforesaid test results, the products of the plaintiff are sub-standard inasmuch as they are priced higher in comparison to the products of other brands and are not true to the claims made by the plaintiff… In my opinion, at the highest, the use of the term ‘ghatiya’ would be in the nature of an exaggeration or hyperbole, which would not be defamatory per se.”

On the satirical slogan “Doctor has no choice,” the court observed:

“The reference to the plaintiff in the impugned video 6 as ‘DOCTOR HAS NO CHOICE’ is prima facie satirical in nature… such a reference was insufficient to establish malice on the part of the defendant.”

Justice Bansal emphasized the role of influencers in educating the public. It mentioned;

Applying the Bonnard principle, as followed by the Division Bench in Khushwant Singh (supra), the Court did not grant an interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The principles that weighed with the Court in not granting the interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff may be summarized below:

(i) It would be unreasonable to place restrictions on the freedom of speech and expression before the full trial takes place;

(ii)Reasonable criticism, comment and parody is largely protected within the right to free speech under the Constitution;

(iii)Even if the plaintiff has received the requisite approvals, it would not mean that the concerns raised by the defendants are not genuine or backed by materials;

(iv)At an interim stage, it cannot be stated that the actions of the defendants are mala fide;

(v)Just because internet publication has wider viewership or a degree of permanence, it would not mean that a different standard for grant of injunction, in variance with the Bonnard principle, would have to be followed. Adopting a different approach would result in disturbing the balance between free speech and the interest of the plaintiff;

(vi)The use of hyperbole and exaggerated forms of speech or parody would not entitle the plaintiff to grant of interim injunction.

Final Ruling: Free Speech Prevails Over Brand Injunction

Concluding the matter, the court declined the plaintiff’s plea for interim relief:

"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. 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

“On a prima facie view, no case of actionable defamation or disparagement has been made out against the defendants… the interim injunction sought by the plaintiff is declined.”

Justice Bansal concluded by reinforcing the court’s commitment to upholding free speech:

"Applying the Bonnard principle as approved by the judgements of the Supreme Court as well as this Court, the plaintiff has failed to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction against the defendants and the statements made by the defendants would be entitled to protection of free speech. The plaintiff has also not been able to establish a prima facie case for infringement of trade marks/ copyright against the defendants."

“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.”

To view the full order, click the link below: