Use Of Trademark To Refer To A Company On Social Media Does Not Constitute Infringement: Delhi High Court Imposes ₹1 Cost On Niva Bupa
The suit sought permanent injunction and a direction for take-down, removal and disablement of certain content put out by Rattewal on his social media accounts.
The Delhi High Court has observed that the mere use of a company’s trademark or trade name by a social media influencer to refer to the company in allegedly offensive or disparaging content does not amount to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, where the individual is neither engaged in the relevant business nor connected with it in any manner.
A Bench of Justice A. J. Bhambhani observed, “Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, this court is of the view that since it is the admitted position that defendant No.1 is not in the insurance business nor is he in any manner connected with such business, and considering the context in which the allegedly offensive or disparaging content has allegedly been put-out by defendant No.1 on his social media accounts/handles, the use of the plaintiff’s trade mark or trade name merely to refer to plaintiff No. 1 does not amount to defendant No. 1 using plaintiff No. 1 ’s trade mark “in the course of trade” or in any other manner, or for any purpose as contemplated in section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. ”
The Court thus permitted Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and another plaintiff to withdraw their suit against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal, with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject to payment of notional costs of Rs. 1 to defendant No. 1.
Advocate Ankur Khandelwal appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Suhail Sehgal appeared for the Respondents.
The suit sought permanent injunction and a direction for take-down, removal and disablement of certain content put out by Rattewal on his social media accounts and handles on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter). The plaintiffs also sought an apology and damages of Rs. 5 crore, along with litigation costs and other consequential and ancillary reliefs.
The genesis of the matter was a consumer complaint made by Neeraj Kumar against Niva Bupa in relation to a medical insurance claim. The complaint culminated in an order dated October 9, 2024, passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, in favour of the complainant.
In the backdrop of the consumer complaint, the Commission had made certain remarks in relation to medical insurance companies in general.
Niva Bupa's grievance was that, arising from the proceedings in the consumer complaint, Rattewal had put out allegedly offensive content against the company on social media. The company also contended that the content referred to an order dated August 19, 2026, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), barring the company from opening a new place for business for a period of six months, arising from certain regulatory violations.
The plaintiffs contended that publishing the allegedly offensive content amounted to infringement of Niva Bupa's registered trade mark under Section 29(4)(c), read with Section 29(8), of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
However, the Court noted that it was the admitted position that Rattewal was not in the insurance business nor connected with such business in any manner.
The Court accordingly held that the suit was not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division, since it was not a matter relating to infringement of any intellectual property right of either plaintiff.
The Court initially directed that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be presented before the court of competent subject matter jurisdiction.
After the order had been dictated, counsel for the plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file the plaintiffs' claim as an ordinary civil suit, as may be permissible in accordance with law.
In view of the request, the Court permitted withdrawal of the suit with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject to the plaintiffs paying notional costs of Re. 1 to defendant No. 1.
The Court also directed the Registry to take appropriate steps for return of the plaint, while pending applications stood disposed of.
Cause Title: Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Vishal Rattewal & Ors.
Appearance:
Petitioners: Advocates Ankur Khandelwal with Ankita Panikkar, Yash Jain, Prashant Shivam and Himanshu Sharma
Respondents: Advocates Suhail Sehgal, Lakshay Singh, Varun Pathak, Sana Banyal, Komal Pathak, Ekta Sharma, Udit Tewari and Surabhi Katare
