The Delhi High Court imposed a cost of Re 1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance. It held that the company had misused its Intellectual Property Division by suing an online influencer. The dispute concerned Vishal Rattewal’s posts criticising the insurer and its services.
According to Justice Anup J Bhambhani, naming a company during criticism does not automatically infringe its trademark. This was particularly relevant because Rattewal was not using the trademark for business. He was neither involved in insurance nor connected with that business.
“Since the suit was filed and pressed, this court is of the view that filing of such suit amounts to misuse of the special jurisdiction of this court under the Intellectual Property Division,” the Bar and Bench quoted the Court as observing.
Niva Bupa and an advocate representing it earlier filed the lawsuit against Rattewal. They wanted his content removed from Instagram, Facebook, YouTube, and X. They also sought an apology, ₹5 crore in damages, and reimbursement of legal expenses.
The dispute started with a medical insurance claim involving consumer Neeraj Kumar. He had filed a consumer complaint against Niva Bupa. On 9 October 2024, a consumer commission in Haryana ruled in his favour.
The commission was located in Charkhi Dadri. Its order also included general observations about medical insurance companies.
Niva Bupa alleged that Rattewal had later published offensive content based on those proceedings. It also objected to his references to an August 2026 regulatory order. That order came from the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI).
The regulator barred Niva Bupa from opening new business locations for six months. The restriction followed regulatory violations.
The insurer argued that Rattewal’s posts had damaged its reputation and attracted social media engagement. It also claimed that he had infringed its registered trademark.
However, the court questioned whether these allegations amounted to trademark infringement under the law. It distinguished naming a company in critical posts from using its trademark commercially. Simply identifying the insurer through its name did not establish trademark use in trade, the Bar and Bench reported.
The court, therefore, found no dispute regarding the infringement of intellectual property rights. This meant its specialised IP Division could not hear the case. The judge said filing and pursuing this lawsuit misused that division’s special powers.
Why Re 1 fine
The Re 1 cost followed this finding of misuse. It was a nominal amount payable to Rattewal. The court initially directed that the lawsuit be returned for filing before an appropriate court.
It later allowed the plaintiffs to withdraw their suit. They could file a fresh civil lawsuit concerning the same dispute. However, this permission was subject to paying Re 1 to Rattewal.
The order addressed whether the IP Division was the correct forum for this lawsuit. The withdrawal permission left the plaintiffs free to pursue a fresh civil case before another appropriate court, the Bar and Bench reported.
The ₹1 fine was a gentle warning, not a punishment. It was rather a clear message that large corporations cannot misuse specialised courts to intimidate critics.