Niva Bupa Trademark Dispute: The Delhi High Court has allowed Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and its co-plaintiff to withdraw their trademark case against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal. The court also gave them permission to file a fresh case before a court with the proper jurisdiction.
Justice A. J. Bhambhani imposed a nominal cost of ₹1, payable to Rattewal. The court said that bringing the dispute before its special Intellectual Property Division was a misuse of its jurisdiction.
How the Dispute Started
The case began after Neeraj Kumar filed a complaint against Niva Bupa over a medical insurance claim. On October 9, 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, ruled in Kumar’s favour. It also made some observations about medical insurance companies.
Delhi Property Tax: MCD SUNIYO 2.0 Offers Waiver on Old Dues Until December 31
Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal later posted offensive content about the company on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X. The company also referred to an August 19, 2026, order by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI). That order barred Niva Bupa from opening a new place of business for six months over regulatory violations.
The plaintiffs claimed that Rattewal was using the company’s name to attract views and engagement by criticising its services. They said the posts damaged the company’s reputation and violated its registered trademark.
They asked the court to remove the disputed content and stop Rattewal from publishing such material. Their demands also included a public apology, ₹5 crore in damages and payment of legal costs.
Why the Court Questioned the Trademark Case
During the hearing the Justice Bhambhani questioned whether the dispute belonged before the High Court’s Intellectual Property Division. The plaintiffs had relied on Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which deals with trademark infringement.
The court noted that Rattewal wasn’t involved in the insurance business and had no connection with it. It said that simply using a company’s name to identify it in critical social media posts doesn’t automatically amount to trademark infringement.
The court explained that such use, in these circumstances, didn’t qualify as using the trademark “in the course of trade” under Section 29 of the Act. It therefore concluded that the dispute didn’t involve infringement of intellectual property rights that could be heard by its Intellectual Property Division.
Delhi Half Marathon 2026: Delhi Metro Starts at 3:30 AM, Free Travel for Runners
Niva Bupa Can File a Fresh Case
The court initially directed that the plaint be returned so the plaintiffs could approach a court with the proper jurisdiction. After the order had been dictated, their lawyers requested permission to withdraw the case and pursue the matter through an ordinary civil suit.
Justice Bhambhani observed that “filing of such suit amounts to misuse of the special jurisdiction of this court under the Intellectual Property Division.”
The court allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and file a fresh case over the same dispute, subject to paying ₹1 in costs to Rattewal. All pending applications in the matter were also disposed of.
