[Bournvita vs Revant Himatsingka] “Influencer FoodPharmer Can Comment On Facts But Can’t Belittle Bournvita”: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court on Wednesday (Oct 23) clarified that its earlier interim order restraining health influencer Revant Himatsingka – who goes by FoodPharmer on social media – from disparaging Bournvita does not stop him from making factual assertions regarding it. The Court did not order a takedown of Himatsingka’s videos but said that an October 15 interim order restraining him from making disparaging comments against Bournvita will continue.

Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!

NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court provided clarity on its earlier interim order, which had restricted popular health influencer Revant Himatsingka—known as FoodPharmer on social media—from making disparaging remarks about the well-known chocolate malt drink, Bournvita.

The court, however, emphasized that this restriction does not prevent Himatsingka from making factual assertions regarding the product.

This clarification came from Justice Amit Bansal in response to a request by Himatsingka’s legal counsel, Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao. Rao had urged the Court to clarify that the interim injunction, issued on October 15, should not be interpreted as a gag order preventing factual commentary.

Application to Vacate the Interim Injunction

Additionally, the Court issued a notice on an application filed by Himatsingka seeking to vacate the interim injunction imposed on him. The injunction stemmed from a legal complaint filed by Mondelez India, the company behind Bournvita. Mondelez accused Himatsingka of making “disparaging and defamatory comments” about their brand in his videos, which garnered significant attention on social media platforms. As part of their complaint, Mondelez also sought the removal of these videos.

The matter of whether the influencer’s previous videos, allegedly disparaging Bournvita, should be taken down is still pending and has not yet been decided by the Court.

Mondelez’s Prima Facie Case

On October 15, the Court opined that Mondelez had established a prima facie case in its favor. As a result, Himatsingka was temporarily restrained from issuing, uploading, or broadcasting any videos, posts, or publications that might disparage Bournvita.

During the latest hearing, the Court was expected to deliberate on whether the earlier videos allegedly disparaging Bournvita should be taken down. Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar, representing Mondelez India, argued for the removal of the videos in question.

The FoodPharmer Phenomenon and the Controversy

Revant Himatsingka, who runs the Instagram account ‘FoodPharmer‘, has gained substantial popularity with approximately 2.7 million followers. In his videos, Himatsingka made claims that Bournvita contains excessive amounts of sugar. One of his videos went viral, prompting public authorities to investigate the health claims associated with Bournvita.

In response, the National Commission for Protection of Child Rights (NCPCR) directed Mondelez to remove claims that Bournvita is a “health drink” from its advertisements, packaging, and labels. This issue also caught the attention of the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, which issued a directive to e-commerce platforms to remove various products categorized as health drinks, citing the lack of a formal definition for such products under the Food Safety and Standards Act 2006.

Mondelez, in its defense, released a statement asserting that Bournvita’s

“formulation has been scientifically crafted by a team of nutritionists and food scientists.”

Following the controversy, Mondelez reduced the sugar content in Bournvita by approximately 15 percent.

Mondelez’s Legal Action Against Himatsingka

Mondelez proceeded to file a lawsuit against Himatsingka, accusing him of posting over 150 videos and social media posts targeting and disparaging their products, including Bournvita and another brand, Tang. Aggrieved by these posts, Mondelez issued a legal notice requesting that Himatsingka cease and desist from defaming their products.

However, Mondelez alleges that Himatsingka continued to create and post more videos containing disparaging remarks about Bournvita.

At the most recent hearing, the Court did not order the immediate removal of the influencer’s videos. Instead, it granted both parties more time to submit their responses.

In the meantime, the interim injunction issued on October 15 against Himatsingka remains in effect, with the Court set to revisit the matter on November 27.

Senior Advocate Rajiv Nayar continues to represent Mondelez India in this legal battle, while Senior Advocate Rajshekhar Rao, along with a team of advocates including Nakul Gandhi, Eshna Kumar, Mujeeb, Gloria Purty, and Harshil Wason, is advocating on behalf of Revant Himatsingka.

Conclusion

This legal dispute underscores the fine line between freedom of expression on social media and the potential for defamation or disparagement of well-established brands.

While the Court has yet to deliver a final ruling on whether Himatsingka’s earlier videos should be removed, the case serves as a critical example of how brands are increasingly turning to legal remedies to protect their reputation in the digital age.

The outcome of this case could have far-reaching implications for both influencers and brands alike.

CASE TITLE:
Mondelez India Foods Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. vs. Mr. Revant Himatsingka

Click Here to Read Previous Reports on Bournvita

FOLLOW US ON YOUTUBE FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES