The way customers appraise products and engage with brands has changed considerably due to the upsurge of social media marketing. The consumer perception and purchasing decisions are now greatly influenced by online reviews, comments, and critique by digital artists and influencers. But this escalating power has also brought up substantial legal hurdles regarding the limits of free speech and the defence of trademark rights and brand reputation. Indian courts are increasingly being asked to weigh these conflicting interests, especially when influencers criticize items while using brand names, emblems, or packaging.
Indian courts’ shifting stance on influencer-driven content is seen in recent court rulings. While some decisions acknowledge the significance of truthful, fact-based criticism as a component of the constitutional right to free speech, others stress that this freedom is limited and needs to be used responsibly. Therefore, it is expected of influencers to make sure that their claims are truthful, thoroughly investigated, and neither deceptive or harmful.
This delicate balance is illustrated by the divergent rulings of the Bombay High Court and the Delhi High Court. The judiciary has investigated whether influencer criticism was based on factual evidence or amounted to deceptive disparagement in several situations involving companies like San Nutrition, Marico Limited, and Mondelez India and well-reputed trademarks like Parachute, Bournvita and Tang. Together, these decisions demonstrate the developing legal framework in India that safeguards trademarks from unsubstantiated influencer disparagement. While honest criticism made in public interest may be protected, careless or unsupported accusations may result in legal repercussions.
In an important ruling concerning influencer-generated content, the Delhi High Court upheld that social media influencers can criticise brands based on substantiated facts, emphasizing that freedom of expression is strongly relevant to online reviews and commentary. In the case of San Nutrition Private Limited vs Arpit Mangal And Others on 28 April, 2025, the Court determined that influencers may express genuine and factual criticisms of products, including a brand name and the packaging in their videos, without it indirectly amounting to trademark infringement or defamation, provided that the criticism is supported by credible evidence like NABL accredited lab test results and is not driven by malicious intent. The decision further explained that employing trademarks for critical commentary qualifies as nominative fair use and does not suggest endorsement, while factual accuracy serves as a full defence in defamation cases. Crucially, the Court weighed the Constitutional right to free speech and expression against brand reputation safeguards, highlighting that honest criticism in public interest aids consumers and should not be limited by excessive legal measures from brands.
The Bombay High Court rendered a significant ruling in Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali, where a well-known YouTube influencer’s video review of Marico’s Parachute Coconut Oil was ordered to be removed due to unapproved use of the company’s registered trademarks and false, derogatory remarks about the product. The influencer’s use of the trademark in the context of critical commentary damaged the brand’s reputation and distinctiveness, in violation of fair-trade practices, the court found, and his claims were made without due diligence or substantiation. Although the influencer claimed that his video was protected by the right to free speech, the court ruled that this right is not unqualified, especially when the content is careless, deceptive, or harms a brand’s reputation. This further emphasizes that influencers are accountable for the veracity of their reviews of trademarked goods.
The dispute between Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. and influencer Revant Himatsingka (FoodPharmer) was a particularly contentious development. An interim order prohibiting the influencer from posting derogatory comments against goods like Bournvita and Tang was issued by the Delhi High Court. The Court noted that the high number of posts—more than 150—could potentially damage the brand’s goodwill and reputation. However, it did not address whether the influencer’s assertions were factually correct or substantiated by facts. Furthermore, there is lack of clarity on what content would be considered acceptable criticism as opposed to illegal disparagement. This ambiguity raises questions about how it can stifle public-interest speech and consumer advocacy, especially when influencers try to draw attention to nutritional or health problems with popular products.
In conclusion, the rapid influence of social media creators in raising consumer awareness brings new legal challenges regarding free speech, trademark protection and brand reputation. The decisions of the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court have demonstrated that, although influencers have the right to express opinions and criticisms of products, such freedom must be exercised with responsibility and factual accuracy. The courts have increasingly recognized that real, evidence-based criticism serves the public interest by enabling informed consumers to make informed choices.
At the same time, these decisions also highlight that free speech doesn’t protect careless, deceptive, or spiteful remarks that can hurt a company’s reputation. If influencers can’t back up what they say or misuse brand names in a way that damages a company’s image, courts have been ready to step in and help out the businesses that are harmed, like in the cases involving Marico Limited and Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd.
However, the absence of precise and uniform legal guidelines controlling influencer speech and brand disparagement is a recurring issue in many situations. Influencers and brands alike have ambiguity due to the lack of clear standards, especially when it comes to what defines “disparagement,” the amount of proof needed, and the acceptable range of trademark usage in criticism. This ambiguity may deter valid consumer-focused discussion and increase the possibility of inconsistent judicial results. Ultimately, the evolving jurisprudence reflects an ongoing attempt to strike a balance between protecting constitutional free speech and safeguarding trademark rights. Moving forward, there is a pressing need for clearer legal standards to ensure that this balance is maintained without undermining either consumer interest or commercial integrity.
Written By
Shobhitha.M
