Summary
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and its advocate sued social media influencer Vishal Rattewal before the Delhi High Court, claiming that his critical posts about the insurer infringed its registered trade mark and damaged its reputation. The court held that referring to a company by its mark in such posts is not use in the course of trade under the Trade Marks Act, and that the suit raised no intellectual property right. The plaint was returned and the suit was later withdrawn with liberty to refile as an ordinary civil suit, on notional costs of Re. 1. The ruling matters because it separates reputation grievances from genuine influencer trademark infringement, and warns against using the IP Division as a shortcut.
Background
When does naming a company in a critical post become influencer trademark infringement? The Delhi High Court answered that question within weeks of an insurer filing a ₹5 crore suit against a social media influencer, and its answer turns on what “use” of a trade mark actually means.
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited (“Niva Bupa”) is a health insurer and the owner of the registered trade mark and trade name NIVA BUPA under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Trade Marks Act”). The dispute began with a consumer complaint by Neeraj Kumar over a medical insurance claim. On 9 October 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, decided the complaint in his favour and made general remarks about medical insurance companies. Vishal Rattewal (“Rattewal”), a social media influencer, later published posts on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X that Niva Bupa regarded as offensive. The posts drew on that consumer order and on an order dated 19 August 2026 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 and its advocate, who joined as the second plaintiff and sought similar relief, then filed CS(COMM) 1032/2026 before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court against Rattewal and two other defendants. They sought a permanent injunction, takedown of the posts from all four platforms, a public apology and ₹5 crore in damages. The court decided the matter on 21 September 2026.
Issues
-
- Whether Rattewal’s posts, which referred to Niva Bupa by its trade mark and trade name, amounted to use “in the course of trade” or to any use contemplated by Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
- Whether Section 29(4)(c) read with Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act brought the claim within the scope of infringement.
- Whether the suit concerned an “Intellectual Property Rights subject matter” under Section 2(i) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022 (“IPD Rules”), so as to be maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division.
Plaintiffs’ Arguments
-
- Rattewal’s posts harmed Niva Bupa’s reputation in India and infringed its registered trade mark.
- Section 29(4)(c) read with Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, together with the definition of “Intellectual Property Rights subject matter” in Section 2(i) of the IPD Rules, placed the suit within the Intellectual Property Division’s jurisdiction.
- Niva Bupa accepted that Rattewal has no connection with the insurance business, but argued that he disparaged its services to gain views and traction as an influencer, and that this amounted to infringement.
- Niva Bupa sought a permanent injunction, takedown of the posts from Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X, an apology and ₹5 crore in damages.
Defendants’ Arguments
-
- Counsel appeared for Rattewal and two other defendants, but the order does not record their submissions.
Court’s Analysis
Naming a Company Is Not Using Its Mark
The court noted that Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, in its sub-sections on infringement, depends on “use” of the registered mark by a person who is not the proprietor. The court observed that Section 29(6) spells out what such use looks like: affixing the mark to goods or packaging, offering goods or services under the mark, importing or exporting goods under it, or using it on business papers or in advertising. Each of these is a commercial act in which the mark identifies the origin of someone’s goods or services.
The court held that Rattewal is not in the insurance business and has no connection with it. The court reasoned that, in the context of the posts, referring to Niva Bupa by its trade mark or trade name was only a way of identifying the company being criticised. Such a reference was not use in the course of trade and not use for any purpose contemplated by Section 29. For the purposes of influencer trademark infringement, the court thus treated the mark as a label for the subject of the commentary, not as a badge of origin for anything Rattewal offered.
A Reputation Grievance Is Not an IP Dispute
The court further observed that the plaintiffs invoked Section 29(4)(c) and Section 29(8) to bring the claim within infringement, and that the grievance in substance concerned harm to reputation caused by critical content. The court found that the posts did not turn on any intellectual property right of either plaintiff. The second plaintiff, an advocate, claimed similar relief on similar allegations and stood on the same footing.
The court held that, because the suit did not concern infringement of an intellectual property right, it fell outside the Intellectual Property Division’s subject matter jurisdiction. The court stated that the IPD Rules confine the Division to disputes that genuinely involve IP rights, so a claim framed in trade mark language does not qualify merely because a registered mark appears in the pleadings. On this view, influencer trademark infringement requires the influencer to use the mark as a mark, which the pleadings did not show.
Misuse of the Division’s Special Jurisdiction
The court directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before a court with competent jurisdiction, and the Registry was told to take the steps needed to return it. After the order was dictated, the plaintiffs’ counsel asked to withdraw the suit with liberty to pursue the claim as an ordinary civil suit.
The court observed that filing and pressing the suit amounted to misuse of the Intellectual Property Division’s special jurisdiction. The court nevertheless allowed withdrawal, with liberty to refile on the same cause of action, but made it conditional on the plaintiffs paying notional costs of Re. 1 to Rattewal. The court thereby recorded its disapproval of the forum choice without deciding whether the posts were defamatory or otherwise actionable elsewhere.
Findings
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:
-
- Referring to Niva Bupa by its trade mark or trade name in critical social media posts, by a person with no connection to the insurance business, is not use “in the course of trade” and not use contemplated by Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
- The suit did not concern infringement of any intellectual property right of either plaintiff and was therefore not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division.
- Filing and pressing the suit before the Intellectual Property Division amounted to misuse of its special jurisdiction.
- The plaint was to be returned for presentation before a court of competent subject matter jurisdiction, the Registry was directed to take steps for its return, and pending applications were disposed of.
- The plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit with liberty to file an ordinary civil suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of notional costs of Re. 1 to Rattewal.
Case Citation: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Vishal Rattewal & Ors., CS(COMM) 1032/2026, High Court of Delhi (Intellectual Property Division), decided on 21 September 2026. The Court order may be viewed and accessed here – CS(COMM) 1032/2026
Authored by Gaurav Mishra, IP Attorney, BananaIP Counsels