Delhi HC Slaps ₹1 Cost on Niva Bupa for Taking Influencer Row to IP Division
Niva Bupa faces a ₹1 cost imposed by the Delhi High Court in a case involving an influencer row and the decision to approach the IP Division.
Niva Bupa has been directed by the Delhi High Court to pay ₹1 in costs over its move to take an influencer dispute to the court’s Intellectual Property Division.
NEW DELHI: The Delhi High Court has imposed nominal costs of ₹1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Ltd for misusing the special jurisdiction of its Intellectual Property (IP) Division. The insurer had sued social media influencer Vishal Rattewal over posts critical of the company.
Justice Anup Jairam Bhambhani held that referring to a company’s trademark while criticising its services does not amount to infringement. This applies especially where the person is not using the mark in the course of trade. The court said that filing and pressing such a suit amounted to misuse of the IP Division’s special jurisdiction.
The case is Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited & Anr. v. Vishal Rattewal & Ors. (CS(COMM) 1032/2026).
Niva Bupa: What the Insurer Sought
Niva Bupa and an advocate representing the company were the plaintiffs. They asked the court to direct removal of Rattewal’s content from Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X. They also sought a public apology, ₹5 crore in damages and litigation costs.
The insurer argued that Rattewal was disparaging its services to attract social media engagement. It said this damaged its reputation and infringed its registered trademark.
Also Read: Insurance Agents Ask IRDAI for Up to 35% Commission Ahead of Reform Deadline
Niva Bupa: Consumer Order and IRDAI Action at the Centre
The dispute traces back to a consumer complaint by Neeraj Kumar over a medical insurance claim. On October 9, 2024, the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission at Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, ruled in his favour. It also made general observations about medical insurers.
Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal later posted offensive content based on those proceedings. It also objected to his references to an August 2026 order of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
In that order, dated August 19, the regulator warned the insurer for breaching expenses-of-management limits for FY 2024-25. It also barred the insurer from opening new places of business for six months. The insurer said it was compliant for FY 2025-26 and the June 2026 quarter. Its shares closed 1.3% lower on the day the order became public.
Niva Bupa: Court’s Reasoning
The court asked how the allegations amounted to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It noted that Rattewal was neither in the insurance business nor connected with it.
Section 29 of the Act requires use of a mark in the course of trade. The court held that using a company’s name only to identify it in allegedly disparaging posts does not meet that test. It concluded that the dispute did not involve IP rights and could not be heard by the IP Division.
The Delhi High Court has taken a similar view before. In 2023, it held that a warning displayed by Google about a third-party gaming app was not use of that app’s mark in the course of trade.
Niva Bupa: Suit Withdrawn, Fresh Filing Allowed
The court first directed that the plaint be returned for filing before a court with appropriate jurisdiction. It later let the plaintiffs withdraw the suit, with liberty to file a fresh civil suit on the same cause of action. The condition was payment of ₹1 as costs to Rattewal.
