Law & Justice
Delhi High Court Declares Niva Bupa’s Suit Against Influencer Not an IP Case
In a ruling dated September 21, 2026, the Delhi High Court held that Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited’s lawsuit against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal over alleged disparaging posts does not constitute an intellectual property dispute and therefore cannot be heard by the Intellectual Property Division. Justice A. J. Bhambhani said that filing the suit before the Division was a misuse of its special jurisdiction.
The court found that the suit, CS(COMM) 1032/2026, was not maintainable before the IP Division because it did not involve the infringement of any intellectual property right belonging to either party. The influencer’s use of the insurer’s name merely to refer to the company did not amount to use of a trade mark “in the course of trade” under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Initially, the court ordered the plaint to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for presentation before a court with the appropriate subject‑matter jurisdiction. After the order was dictated, the plaintiffs’ counsel requested permission to withdraw the suit and file an ordinary civil suit. The court granted the request, subject to the payment of a symbolic Rs 1 in notional costs to defendant No. 1.
All pending applications (I.A. 25879 to 25883 of 2026) were disposed of.
Niva Bupa and its advocate, who is plaintiff No. 2, had sued Rattewal seeking a permanent injunction against content posted by the influencer on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X; the removal of that content; an apology; and damages of Rs 5 crore plus litigation costs. Plaintiff No. 2, who had represented the insurer in an earlier proceeding, sought similar relief.
The dispute began with a consumer complaint by Neeraj Kumar 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 and made observations about medical insurance companies in general. The insurer said the influencer’s content was based on these proceedings and also referred to an August 19, 2026, order in which the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India barred Niva Bupa from opening new business locations for six months over regulatory violations. The insurer described the content as offensive and claimed it had damaged the company’s reputation in India.
The plaintiffs argued that the posts infringed Niva Bupa’s registered trade mark by damaging its reputation, relying on Section 29(4)(c) read with Section 29(8) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and Section 2(i) of the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2022. The court rejected the claim, noting that the influencer was not in the insurance business and that the use of the insurer’s name was merely referential, not “in the course of trade.”
The order does not determine whether the influencer’s content was defamatory or unlawful, nor does it assess the truth of the posts. It only addresses whether the IP Division was the appropriate forum. The Rs 1 in costs is symbolic and does not reflect any decision on the merits. The court allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw the suit and file a fresh civil suit based on the same cause of action, subject to payment of Rs 1 in costs to Rattewal. The insurer may pursue its grievance before a court with the appropriate jurisdiction.