In the case of Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v. Mr. Prashant Desai, the Delhi High Court issued an interim injunction restraining the defendant, a social media influencer, from disparaging the trademark “COMPLAN,” owned by Zydus Wellness Products Ltd.
Dispute Between Zydus and Prashant Desai
The dispute between the parties arose from a video posted by the defendant on Instagram and posts on Linkedin, in which he criticized several health food products, including Zydus’ “COMPLAN,” for allegedly containing excessive amounts of sugar harmful to children. The video gained widespread attention, amassing millions of views, likes, and shares, which perturbed Zydus and led to this suit.
Arguments of Zydus
Zydus, a well-known Indian nutrition and health products company, claimed that the defendant’s statements in the video were misleading, defamatory, and damaging to the reputation of its registered trademark. The company argued that the video falsely exaggerated the sugar content of “COMPLAN Pista Badam,” one of its product variants, leading consumers to believe it was unfit for children’s health. Zydus stated that the defendant’s statements were not backed by scientific evidence and ignored the distinction between added sugars and naturally occurring sugars as outlined by global health organizations such as the World Health Organization (WHO).
Zydus further argued that the defendant, despite his large online following, lacked the necessary medical qualifications to make authoritative statements on nutrition. The company cited the Guidelines for Influencer Advertising in Digital Media issued by the Advertising Standards Council of India (ASCI), which require influencers in the health and nutrition space to have relevant qualifications. It contended that the defendant’s video violated these guidelines and sought an immediate injunction to prevent further harm to its brand.
Arguments of Prashant Desai
In defense, Prashant Desai claimed that his video was educational, aimed at raising awareness about high sugar content in certain food products. He invoked his right to freedom of speech and expression under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India, arguing that his content was protected as free speech. He further contended that the ASCI guidelines were not mandatory and that his statements were based on his research in health and wellness, albeit without formal medical qualifications.
Court’s Findings
After reviewing the facts, the court found that the defendant, as a social media influencer with significant public reach, had a heightened responsibility to ensure the accuracy of his statements, particularly in matters of public health. The video’s specific targeting of “COMPLAN” and the unsubstantiated claims about its sugar content, as per the Court, were damaging to Zydus’ reputation and goodwill. The court stated that while freedom of speech is a constitutional right, it must be exercised within the boundaries of truth and public responsibility, especially when it involves the reputation of established brands.
Based on its findings, the court concluded that the video amounted to disparagement of Zydus’ trademark and product, as it contained false and injurious statements likely to mislead consumers. It also observed that the defendant’s video lacked proper evidence to support its claims and that his actions were likely motivated by ulterior intent, as he continued to post further content ridiculing the product after receiving a legal notice from Zydus.
As a result, the court granted Zydus’ request for an interim injunction, restraining the defendant from posting or disseminating any content that disparaged “COMPLAN” or its related products. The court also directed the defendant to remove the impugned video from all his social media platforms within two weeks, stating that continued circulation of the video would cause irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s brand and market reputation.
Citation: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v. Prashant Desai, CS(COMM) 684/2024 (Del. H.C. Sept. 26, 2024). Available at: http://indiankanoon.org/doc/190433832/
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
