Trademark Suit Over Influencer's Critical Social Media Posts Not Maintainable Before IP Division: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has ruled that a social media influencer's use of a company's trade mark or trade name merely to refer to it in critical posts does not amount to use “in the course of trade” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice A.J. Bhambhani held that Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited's suit against influencer Vishal Rattewal was not maintainable before the court's Intellectual Property Division, as it did not concern infringement of any intellectual property right of either plaintiff. The court later observed that filing the suit amounted to “misuse of the special jurisdiction” of the Division.

Niva Bupa sought a permanent injunction, removal of Rattewal's social media posts on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X, an apology, and ₹5 crore in damages.

The dispute arose from a consumer complaint filed by Neeraj Kumar against Niva Bupa over a medical insurance claim. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, ruled in Kumar's favour on October 9, 2024. The commission also made remarks about medical insurance companies in general.

Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal's posts drew on those proceedings and referred to an August 19, 2026, order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). The order barred the company from opening a new place of business for six months over regulatory violations.

The company argued that the posts harmed its reputation and infringed its registered trade mark.

When asked how the suit qualified as an intellectual property matter, the plaintiffs relied on Section 29(4)(c) read with Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and the definition of “Intellectual Property Rights subject matter” under Section 2(i) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022.

The plaintiffs acknowledged that Rattewal was neither in the insurance business nor connected with it. They argued, however, that he was disparaging Niva Bupa's services to attract views and gain traction on social media.

The court held that Rattewal's use of Niva Bupa's trade mark or trade name merely to refer to the company did not amount to use “in the course of trade” or otherwise constitute use contemplated under Section 29 of the Act.

It ruled that the suit did not concern infringement of any intellectual property right of either plaintiff. The court directed that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before a court with competent subject-matter jurisdiction.

After the order had been dictated, however, the plaintiffs' counsel sought permission to withdraw the suit, with liberty to pursue the claim as an ordinary civil suit in accordance with law.

The court observed that, since the suit had been filed and pressed, doing so “amounts to misuse of the special jurisdiction of this court under the Intellectual Property Division."

It nevertheless permitted the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject to the plaintiffs paying notional costs of ₹1 to Rattewal.