Access the court order here.
The Delhi High Court ruled that Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited’s suit against a social media influencer over allegedly disparaging posts does not qualify as an intellectual property dispute and cannot be heard by the Intellectual Property Division. In an order dated September 21, 2026, Justice A. J. Bhambhani stated that filing the suit before the Division amounted to a misuse of its special jurisdiction.
What the court decided
- The suit, CS(COMM) 1032/2026, was found to be not maintainable before the IP Division because it did not concern the infringement of any intellectual property right belonging to either plaintiff.
- The court held that the influencer’s use of the insurer’s name merely to refer to the company did not constitute use of a trade mark “in the course of trade” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- The court initially ordered the plaint to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before a court with the appropriate subject-matter jurisdiction.
- After the order had been dictated, the plaintiffs’ counsel sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file an ordinary civil suit. The court allowed the request, subject to the payment of Re. 1 in notional costs to defendant No. 1.
- All pending applications (I.A. 25879 to 25883 of 2026) were disposed of.
What the plaintiffs sought
Niva Bupa and its advocate, who is plaintiff No. 2, sued defendant No. 1, Vishal Rattewal, a social media influencer. They sought:
- A permanent injunction against content posted by the influencer on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X.
- The take-down, removal and disabling of that content.
- An apology.
- Damages of Rs. 5 crore, along with litigation costs.
Plaintiff No. 2, who had represented the insurer in an earlier proceeding, sought similar relief based on similar allegations. Counsel for defendants 1, 3 and 4 appeared in the matter. The order does not describe the roles of defendants 3 and 4 or specify what the posts said.
The background
The dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by Neeraj Kumar against Niva Bupa over a medical insurance claim. On October 9, 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, ruled in Kumar’s favour and made additional observations about medical insurance companies in general.
The insurer stated that the influencer’s content was based on these proceedings. The content also referred to an order dated August 19, 2026, in which the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India barred Niva Bupa from opening new business locations for six months over regulatory violations. The insurer described the content as offensive and claimed that it had damaged the company’s reputation in India.
The plaintiffs’ trade mark argument
The plaintiffs argued that the posts infringed Niva Bupa’s registered trade mark by damaging its reputation. To bring the case within the IP Division’s jurisdiction, they relied on:
- Section 29(4)(c), read with Section 29(8), of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Section 2(i) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022, which defines “Intellectual Property Rights subject matter.”
The plaintiffs argued that the influencer was seeking views and traction by disparaging the insurer’s services and that this amounted to trade mark infringement.
Why the court rejected it
The court questioned how the suit qualified as an intellectual property dispute. It based its conclusion on two points:
- The defendant was not in the insurance business. In response to a direct question from the court, the plaintiffs’ counsel confirmed that the influencer was not in the insurance business and had no connection to it.
- The context of the posts. In light of this confirmation and the context in which the content was allegedly published, the court held that using the insurer’s mark or name merely to refer to the company did not constitute use “in the course of trade” or use for any purpose contemplated by Section 29.
Section 29(4) applies when a person uses a mark “in the course of trade”. As the court found no such use, the infringement claim failed at the outset. The order reproduces Section 29 in full but replaces sub-sections (7), (8) and (9) with asterisks. It therefore does not reproduce the text of Section 29(8), which the plaintiffs had cited.
What the order leaves open
The order does not determine whether the influencer’s content was defamatory, disparaging or otherwise unlawful. Nor does it assess the truth of the posts. It addresses only whether the IP Division was the appropriate forum. The Rs 1 in costs is symbolic and does not reflect any decision on the merits of the dispute.
The court permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and file a fresh civil suit based on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs 1 in costs to Rattewal. The order does not prevent the insurer from pursuing its grievance before a court with the appropriate jurisdiction.
Also read:
- IRDAI wants insurers to stop hiding prices behind personal data walls; calls it a dark pattern
- From music streaming to AI training: What India’s IP data tells us about the next copyright debate
The post Delhi HC rejects Niva Bupa’s trade mark claim against influencer, calls IP suit a misuse of jurisdiction appeared first on MEDIANAMA.