The High Court of Delhi has ruled that a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement against a social media influencer is not maintainable before its Intellectual Property Division, marking a significant clarification on the limits of brand protection in the digital era. Justice A. J. Bhambhani held that an influencer’s use of a company’s trade name to criticize its services does not qualify as use “in the course of trade” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Consequently, the court found the matter fell outside the scope of its specialized IP jurisdiction, directing the plaintiff, Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited, to seek legal recourse through an ordinary civil suit.

The dispute originated from a series of social media posts by defendant Vishal Rattewal, who used various platforms including Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X to highlight grievances against Niva Bupa. The plaintiffs alleged that these posts, which referenced a consumer complaint and a regulatory action by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), caused irreparable damage to the company’s reputation. Niva Bupa, along with its legal counsel, sought a permanent injunction against the influencer, as well as ₹5 crore in damages for the alleged infringement of their registered trademark.

During the proceedings, the plaintiffs attempted to justify the invocation of the court’s specialized IP jurisdiction by citing Section 29(4)(c) and Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act. They argued that because Rattewal was seeking to increase his digital footprint and viewer engagement by disparaging the insurance provider, his actions constituted an unfair advantage taken of the company's reputation. However, the court identified a fundamental disconnect between the defendant's activities and the requirements for trademark infringement.

Justice Bhambhani observed that the defendant, a social media influencer, operates entirely outside the insurance sector. The court clarified that mentioning a brand name in the context of public grievance or criticism does not equate to a commercial usage meant to deceive consumers or pass off goods. In his order, Justice Bhambhani noted, “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.”

Clarifying the Scope of Intellectual Property Jurisdiction

The ruling emphasizes that the Intellectual Property Division of the High Court of Delhi is strictly intended for cases involving the genuine infringement of intellectual property rights. The judge warned against the improper use of this specialized bench for matters that essentially sound in defamation or generic civil liability.

After the court expressed its view that the suit was improperly filed, the plaintiffs sought leave to withdraw the matter. The court permitted the withdrawal with the liberty to file an ordinary civil suit, provided it complies with standard jurisdictional laws. However, the court did not do so without expressing strong disapproval of the manner in which the litigation was initiated. Highlighting the misuse of judicial resources, Justice Bhambhani noted that the attempt to shoehorn a defamation-related dispute into the IP category warranted a penalty, ordering the plaintiffs to pay notional costs of Re 1 to the defendant.

Contextualizing Regulatory and Consumer Grievances

The genesis of the conflict traces back to an October 2024 order passed by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, which ruled in favor of a customer, Neeraj Kumar, in a medical insurance claim dispute against Niva Bupa. That order had included generalized critical remarks regarding the insurance industry, which the influencer subsequently highlighted.

Adding to the complexity, the plaintiff’s own regulatory standing was under fire at the time. A mid-2026 order by the IRDAI had restricted Niva Bupa from opening new business locations for a six-month period due to documented regulatory violations. By weaving these official records into his social media content, the defendant had framed his commentary as a matter of public interest and consumer awareness.

The court’s decision underscores the difficulty corporations face when attempting to control the narrative on social media platforms through IP litigation. By failing to establish that the influencer was acting as a commercial competitor, the plaintiffs could not sustain the high threshold required for a trademark infringement claim under Section 29 of the Act. As the proceedings move toward a potential ordinary civil suit, the legal community will be watching to see how the plaintiffs navigate the distinction between protecting brand equity and silencing consumer criticism. For now, the case stands as a cautionary tale for entities seeking to leverage specialized intellectual property benches for grievances that may be better suited for different legal forums. The registry has been directed to take the necessary steps for the formal return of the plaint, marking the end of this particular attempt at adjudication within the IP division.