The Delhi High Court recently imposed nominal costs of ₹1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited for misusing its Intellectual Property (IP) Division's jurisdiction to sue a social media influencer over posts against the insurance company [Niva Bupa Vs Vishal Rattewal].
Justice Anup J Bhambhani held that merely referring to a company's trademark while criticising its services does not constitute trademark infringement, particularly when the person making such statements is not using the mark in the course of trade.
"Since the suit was filed and pressed, this court is of the view that filing of such suit amounts to misuse of the special jurisdiction of this court under the Intellectual Property Division," the Court observed.
The case arose from a lawsuit filed by Niva Bupa and an advocate representing the company (plaintiffs) against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal.
They sought removal of the content published on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X, besides an apology, damages of ₹5 crore and litigation costs.
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Neeraj Kumar concerning a medical insurance claim against Niva Bupa.
On October 9, 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Charkhi Dadri in Haryana ruled in favour of Kumar and made certain observations concerning medical insurance companies generally.
Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal subsequently published offensive material about the company based on these proceedings.
The insurer also objected to his references to an August 2026 order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), which barred Niva Bupa from opening new places of business for six months over regulatory violations.
Niva Bupa argued that Rattewal was attracting social media engagement by disparaging its services and damaging its reputation and infringing its registered trademark.
However, the Court questioned how such allegations constituted trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
It noted that Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance business nor connected with it.
The Court held that merely using a company's name to identify it in allegedly disparaging posts did not constitute use of its trademark in the course of trade.
Consequently, the Court concluded that the dispute did not involve infringement of intellectual property rights and could not be entertained by its IP Division.
Although the Court initially wanted to dismiss the suit, it subsequently permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and file an ordinary civil suit subject to payment of ₹1 as costs to Rattewal.
Advocates Ankur Khandelwal, Ankita Panikkar, Yash Jain, Prashant Shivam and Himanshu Sharma represented the plaintiffs.
Advocates Suhail Sehgal and Lakshay Singh represented Rattewal.