Court holds that mere mention of Niva Bupa's trade mark by a social media influencer, without commercial use, does not constitute infringement under Trade Marks Act, 1999; suit before Intellectual Property Division not maintainable
In a significant judgment delivered on September 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court, presided by Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani, clarified the scope of trade mark infringement in the context of social media commentary. The case involved Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and another as plaintiffs, who had filed a suit against Mr. Vishal Rattewal, a social media influencer, alleging disparagement and trade mark infringement.
The plaintiffs sought a permanent injunction, removal of allegedly offensive social media content, an apology, and damages amounting to Rs. 5 crore. The suit was brought before the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Division of the Delhi High Court, asserting that the defendant's social media posts infringed upon the registered trade mark of Niva Bupa under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Background facts revealed that the dispute originated from a consumer complaint filed by a third party against Niva Bupa regarding a medical insurance claim. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission (DCDRC) had passed an order favoring the complainant and made remarks concerning medical insurance companies generally. Subsequently, the defendant posted content on platforms like Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X (formerly Twitter), which the plaintiffs claimed was disparaging and referenced an IRDAI order barring Niva Bupa from opening new business locations for six months due to regulatory violations.
However, the court found that the defendant was not engaged in the insurance business nor connected to it in any commercial sense. The court emphasized that for a trade mark infringement claim to be maintainable under Section 29, the use of the mark must be "in the course of trade" or in relation to goods or services for which the trade mark is registered. Merely referring to a plaintiff's trade mark or name in social media posts that comment on consumer disputes or regulatory actions does not amount to use in the course of trade.
The court analyzed Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, highlighting that infringement requires actual commercial use of the mark or use as part of trade name or business dealings. Since the defendant's posts were not connected to any commercial activity or business dealing in insurance services, the court held that no infringement had occurred.
Consequently, the court ruled that the suit was not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division, as it did not involve infringement of any intellectual property right. The plaint was returned to the plaintiffs under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before the court having appropriate subject matter jurisdiction.
Further, the plaintiffs sought permission to withdraw the suit with liberty to file an ordinary civil suit for the same cause of action if permissible by law. The court granted withdrawal but noted that filing the suit before the IPR Division was a misuse of its special jurisdiction and imposed a notional cost of Re. 1/- payable to the defendant.
This judgment serves as a crucial precedent on the boundaries of trade mark infringement in the digital age, especially concerning social media influencers and commentary. It underscores that mere mention of a trade mark in non-commercial contexts does not trigger statutory protection against infringement.
Bottom Line:
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Mere reference to plaintiff company/trade mark by a social media influencer while posting allegedly disparaging content, when he is not engaged in plaintiff's line of business, does not amount to use of trade mark "in the course of trade" under section 29 - Suit filed before Intellectual Property Division held not maintainable - Plaint permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file ordinary civil suit, subject to payment of notional costs.
Statutory provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 Section 29; Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 Order VII Rule 10
