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 \u20b95 crore suit against a social media influencer, and its answer turns on what \u201cuse\u201d of a trade mark actually means.<\/p>\n
Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited (\u201cNiva Bupa\u201d) is a health insurer and the owner of the registered trade mark and trade name NIVA BUPA under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (\u201cTrade Marks Act\u201d). 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 (\u201cRattewal\u201d), 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 (\u201cIRDAI\u201d), which barred Niva Bupa from opening new places of business for six months over regulatory violations.<\/p>\n
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 \u20b95 crore in damages. The court decided the matter on 21 September 2026.<\/p>\n
The court noted that Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, in its sub-sections on infringement, depends on \u201cuse\u201d 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\u2019s goods or services.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
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.<\/p>\n
The court held that, because the suit did not concern infringement of an intellectual property right, it fell outside the Intellectual Property Division\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
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\u2019 counsel asked to withdraw the suit with liberty to pursue the claim as an ordinary civil suit.<\/p>\n
The court observed that filing and pressing the suit amounted to misuse of the Intellectual Property Division\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n
In view of the observations and the arguments presented by both the parties, the Delhi High Court held that:<\/p>\n