Gaming
From Valsad to SC: Justice Pardiwala holds fate of $3 billion gaming industry, 2 lakh jobs
Influencers' fact-based criticism of brands is not defamation: Delhi High Court
In a significant move, the court affirmed that influencers can display brand names in their critiques without fear of trademark infringement claims.
This ruling marks a significant moment for app developers in India, offering a potential avenue for recourse against perceived unfair practices by dominant platform providers. The case is now set to proceed to a full hearing, where Testbook's allegations against Google's app store billing policies will be thoroughly examined. (Image source: Unsplash)
The Delhi High Court has refused to grant a temporary injunction in favour of San Nutrition Private Limited in its plea against alleged defamation, disparagement and trademark infringement by four social media influencers who made videos featuring San Nutrition's 'Doctor's Choice' products.
The Delhi High Court cited that criticism of consumer brands, when backed by scientific evidence, does not amount to defamation. Justice Amit Bansal noted that San Nutrition nowhere questioned the genuineness of the findings in the laboratory reports relied by the defendants/influencers. The Court noted that San Nutrition only questioned the credibility of the laboratories, stating that they were not FSSAI registered.
The ruling came in response to an interim plea filed by San Nutrition Private Limited, which sued four influencers, Arpit Mangal, Kabir Grover, Manish Keshwani and Avijit Roy, for posting critical reviews of its whey protein products under the "Doctor’s Choice" label.
The Court said that the veracity of the results of the laboratory reports can only be tested at the stage of trial. It noted that they cannot be disregarded at an interim stage merely because they are not FSSAI recognized.
The court affirmed that influencers can display brand names in their critiques without fear of trademark infringement claims. It also said that satire, hyperbole and pointed criticism remain protected forms of free speech; and brands cannot shift blame onto outsourced manufacturers for false claims on product labels.
The court found that Arpit Mangal’s review was based on credible laboratory test results and upheld his defence of truth. Even language deemed harsh, such as Mangal’s description of the product as "ghatiya" (inferior) was protected, with the judge noting that lab reports supported his claims.
San Nutrition’s attempt to discredit the lab tests and disown responsibility for the label information was dismissed as "completely untenable", further reinforcing the need for brands to maintain transparency about their products.
SPOTLIGHT
Big-ticket buying decisions now demand more than just logic and product specs – they require trust, emotional connection, and brand stories that resonate.
Read MoreExplained: What the Online Gaming Bill means for the industry, users and platforms
The Online Gaming Bill 2025 imposes severe penalties, allows warrantless search and seizure, and empowers a central authority to regulate the digital gaming ecosystem. It is expected to disrupt platforms, payment systems, and advertising in the sector. Here's all you need to know about the bill.