Delhi High Court imposes ₹1 cost on Niva Bupa over ₹5 crore suit against influencer

The Delhi High Court has imposed a token cost of ₹1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited for invoking its Intellectual Property Division to pursue a ₹5 crore suit against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal over allegedly disparaging posts, holding that the dispute did not involve trademark infringement.

Justice Anup J. Bhambhani, in an order passed on September 21, observed that merely using an insurance company’s name or trademark to identify it in social media posts did not, in the circumstances of the case, amount to trademark infringement.

Niva Bupa had approached the court seeking the removal of allegedly disparaging posts published in late August this year by Mr. Rattewal on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X.

It submitted that Mr. Rattewal, a social media influencer and content creator with a substantial following, had deliberately used its distinctive name, trademarks, logo and other brand identifiers, including ‘NIVA BUPA’, prominently in the titles, thumbnails, captions, visual presentation and content of his publications. The company alleged that he had simultaneously associated the brand with allegations of “fraud, dishonesty, deception, and unfair trade practices”.

It sought an apology, ₹5 crore in damages and litigation costs, alleging that the content had harmed its reputation and infringed its registered trademark.

The dispute stemmed from a consumer complaint filed by Mr. Neeraj Kumar against the insurer before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana. In an order passed on October 9, 2024, the commission ruled in Mr. Kumar’s favour and made certain observations concerning medical insurance companies.

Niva Bupa alleged that Mr. Rattewal subsequently published offensive and disparaging content about the company in connection with the consumer proceedings.

In this backdrop, Niva Bupa contended that, by publishing allegedly offensive content on his social media accounts, Mr. Rattewal has infringed its registered trade mark by harming its reputation in India.

The court, however, held that Mr. Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance business nor connected with it. Using Niva Bupa’s name or trademark to identify the company in the alleged posts did not amount to use “in the course of trade” or constitute infringement under the Trade Marks Act, it said.

“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 held.

After the court dictated its order returning the plaint, Niva Bupa sought permission to withdraw the suit and pursue its claims through an ordinary civil action. The court allowed the request, granting them liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of ₹1 as costs to Mr. Rattewal.