The Delhi High Court has permitted Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and another plaintiff to withdraw their trademark suit against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal, while allowing them to file a fresh case over the same dispute before a competent court. Justice A. J. Bhambhani imposed nominal costs of ₹1 payable to Rattewal, observing that invoking the court’s special Intellectual Property Division jurisdiction in the matter amounted to misuse.
Background
The dispute arose after a consumer, Neeraj Kumar, filed a complaint concerning a medical insurance claim against Niva Bupa. On October 9, 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, ruled in Kumar’s favour and made certain observations about medical insurance companies generally.
Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal subsequently published offensive and disparaging content about the company on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X. The company also referred to an August 19, 2026, order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), which barred it from opening a new place of business for six months over regulatory violations.
The plaintiffs sought removal of the disputed content, a permanent injunction, an apology, ₹5 crore in damages and litigation costs. They argued that the social media posts infringed Niva Bupa’s registered trademark and harmed its reputation.
Justice Bhambhani questioned whether the dispute qualified as an intellectual property matter within the jurisdiction of the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division. The plaintiffs relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with infringement of registered trademarks.
During the proceedings, the plaintiffs acknowledged that Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance business nor connected with it. They argued that he was using the company’s name to attract views and engagement on social media by criticising its services.
The Court held that merely referring to a company’s trademark or trade name to identify it in allegedly disparaging content did not, in the circumstances, amount to use of the mark “in the course of trade” as contemplated under Section 29 of the Act.
It concluded that the suit did not concern infringement of an intellectual property right and was therefore not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division.
The Court initially directed that the plaint be returned for presentation before a court with competent subject-matter jurisdiction. After the order had been dictated, however, the plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit and pursue their claim as an ordinary civil suit, as permissible under law.
Justice Bhambhani observed that filing and pressing the case before the Intellectual Property Division amounted to “misuse of the special jurisdiction of this court under the Intellectual Property Division.”
The Court nevertheless permitted withdrawal with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject to payment of ₹1 as costs to Vishal Rattewal.
The pending applications also stood disposed of.
