Read Time: 12 minutes

Synopsis

The Delhi High Court, on Thursday, directed Social Media Influencer Prashant Desai to take down the video disparaging trademark COMPLAN owned by Zydus Wellness Products Limited. The court rejected Desai’s contention that the video was aimed to educate and inform viewers without intending harm to Zydus Wellness or its product.

However, the bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee opined that “The defendant (Desai) cannot be allowed to openly belittle, malign or vilify the plaintiff’s product ‘COMPLAN’ about something which has been recognised/ authorised by the Government of India”. 

Zydus Wellness Products Limited filed a lawsuit to restrain Prashant Desai, a social media influencer, from making disparaging or defamatory remarks about their trademark, ‘COMPLAN.’ Desai had posted a video on Instagram comparing COMPLAN with other products like Bournvita, Horlicks, biscuits, and cereals, making negative comments about COMPLAN’s health effects.

Zydus Wellness, represented by Advocate Sagar Chandra, argued that Desai’s video contained misleading and unverified claims that rejected the product’s benefits, which contradicted the instructions on its packaging. Advocate Chandra accused Desai of manipulating parents’ emotions and misleading the public into believing that COMPLAN was harmful to children's health. Despite Zydus reaching out to Desai through Instagram and LinkedIn, the video was not removed.

Advocate Chandra highlighted that Desai, as an influencer, should have exercised caution, especially since he falsely portrayed himself as a doctor, nutritionist, or dietician. He claimed that Desai’s reckless statements had a greater impact on the public than if made by an ordinary individual, causing reputational damage to the brand.

Relying on the Influencer Advertising Guidelines, Advocate Chandra emphasized that health influencers must possess and disclose proper medical qualifications when making health-related posts. Desai’s failure to do so violated the ASCI guidelines and the Guidelines for Preventing Misleading Advertisements. Advocate Chandra argued that Desai’s statements met the criteria for defamation, as they were false, malicious, and had caused harm to the company.

Additionally, Advocate Chandra disputed Desai’s claim that 40-50 grams of sugar in COMPLAN exceeded children's daily intake by 200%, clarifying that the actual sugar content per serving was much lower than Desai asserted.

Desai, represented by Advocate Misha Rohatgi Mohta, claimed to have earned various certifications, including ‘Nutrition Science’ and ‘Exercise Physiology’ from Stanford University in 2023 and ‘Health and Wellness’ from Harvard Medical School in the same year. He also undertook a glucose course by Jessica Inchauspe and was pursuing additional courses by Dr. Peter Attia and Dr. Andy Galpin.

Advocate Mohta argued that the ASCI guidelines were not mandatory, merely serving as guiding principles without imposing any binding obligations. Consequently, actions based on these guidelines were discretionary.

On the issue of malice, Advocate Mohta argued that Zydus Wellness needed to demonstrate that Desai acted with dishonest intent or ulterior motives, which was not evident in this case. The video was focused on raising awareness about the harmful effects of high sugar intake in children and was protected under Article 19(1)(a) of the Indian Constitution, guaranteeing freedom of speech.

The court first emphasized the impact of social media on the opinion of the public. The court remarked “Speech’, ‘Sound’ and ‘Sight’ drive both the ‘Mind’ and the ‘Heart’ of any Human. What one speaks, what one hears and what one sees determine the thought process which leave an indelible impact on both the ‘Mind’ and the ‘Heart’ of a Human”. 

The court noted that social media delivers instant news and has created the role of the ‘Social Media Influencer’, individuals with global reach who can significantly impact society. However, the court also remarked that “If backed by reasons, it is no doubt for the betterment of Humanity but if baseless it can significantly backfire”. 

Furthermore, the court opined that the video commenced with unfounded negative statements and lacked concrete medical evidence, rendering it damaging and malicious. Desai’s explanations were deemed insufficient, particularly as he specifically named the plaintiff's product, the court added. 

“The tone, tenor and language used by the defendant in the impugned video and the subsequent actions by him from time to time within a span of few days speaks volumes of his overall conduct, more so, when he is claiming himself to be a ‘Social Media Influencer’. All of them give the impression that the defendant was ridiculing the plaintiff all throughout”, the court further opined. 

On the issue of Desai’s impact on public opinion, the court noted that he was aware of his influence as a social media personality, and therefore, should have exercised greater caution and responsibility when uploading the contested video. 

On the issue of the right of expression under Article 19, the court opined that while the provision guarantees the right to freedom of speech and expression to all citizens, these rights are subjected to reasonable restrictions. Although individuals can express opinions freely, they must refrain from slanderous or defamatory remarks, the court elucidated. 

Regarding the applicability of disparagement in the present scenario, the court referred to Black's Law Dictionary, noting that disparagement refers to “a false and injurious statement that discredits or detracts from the reputation of another's property, products, or business”. The court held that Zydus Wellness had sufficiently established a case disparagement against Desai.

Consequently, the court held that Desai’s actions appeared to encourage the public to avoid the product, thereby potentially causing significant reputational harm to Zydus Wellness. Given Desai’s large and growing social media following, the uploaded video has resulted in special damages for Zydus Wellness, which will require further examination in court.

Accordingly, the court ordered Desai to take down the video from all his social media handles page within two weeks. 

For Zydus Wellness: Advocates Sagar Chandra, Shubhie Wahi and Ankita Seth
For Prashant Desai: Advocates Misha Rohatgi Mohta, Naul Mohta, Munaf Virjee, Vidhi Gupta, Riya Dhingra, Puneet Pathak, Ayush Kashyap, Amulya Upadhyay and Bharat Monga

Case Title: Zydus Wellness Products Ltd v Prashant Desai (2024:DHC:7432)