Delhi High Court rejects Niva Bupa's ₹5 crore IP suit against influencer

The Delhi High Court has dismissed an intellectual property suit filed by Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal, holding that referencing a corporate trademark in critical commentary does not amount to trademark infringement.

Justice Anup J. Bhambhani ruled that the dispute falls outside the jurisdiction of the court's Intellectual Property Division, allowing the insurer to withdraw the action and refile it as an ordinary civil suit subject to paying a ₹1 token cost to the content creator.

Niva Bupa had approached the court seeking an immediate injunction, a public apology, the takedown of posts across Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X, alongside ₹5 crore in damages. The insurer alleged that Rattewal, who commands a substantial online following, prominently used its registered name, logo, and brand identifiers in video titles and captions while linking the company to accusations of unfair trade practices, deception, and fraud.

Why the High Court rejected the IP claim

The dispute stemmed from online posts discussing an October 2024 ruling by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, which found in favour of policyholder Neeraj Kumar, as well as regulatory proceedings before the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). Niva Bupa argued that linking its trademark to allegations of misconduct harmed its corporate reputation and infringed its registered mark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Bhambhani rejected that argument, noting that Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance sector nor operating a competing commercial business. The bench held that using an insurer's registered name merely to identify the corporate entity in commentary does not constitute trademark use "in the course of trade" as required under the statute.

"In the opinion of this court, this suit is not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division of this court, since it is not a matter relating to infringement of any intellectual property right of either of the plaintiffs," the court stated.

Jurisdictional shift and next steps

Following the court's direction to return the plaint, Niva Bupa requested permission to withdraw the lawsuit to pursue standard civil remedies for alleged defamation. The bench granted the request, giving liberty to file a fresh civil suit on the same cause of action.

The court emphasised that its ruling addressed only jurisdictional maintainability under intellectual property law, explicitly leaving the factual merits and truth of the underlying claims to be evaluated if a civil suit is subsequently filed.