Social Media Criticism And Trade Mark Infringement
Order dated 21.9.2026 of the High Court of Delhi in CS (COMM) 1032 / 2026 of Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and another Vs. Mr. Vishal Rattewal and others
By way of the present suit the plaintiffs seek the relief of permanent injunction and a direction for take-down, removal and disablement of certain content put-out by defendant No.1, who is a social media influencer on his social media accounts/handles on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X (formerly Twitter), as detailed in the plaint. 2. The plaintiffs also seek an apology and damages of Rs. 5 crore along with litigation costs and other consequential and ancillary reliefs against defendant No.1.
The genesis of the matter is a consumer complaint made by one Neeraj Kumar against plaintiff No.1 (Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited) in relation to a medical insurance claim, which culminated in the passing of order dated 09.10.2024 by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana (‘DCDRC’) in favour of the complainant. In the backdrop of the consumer complaint relating to plaintiff No.1 insurance company in that case, the DCDRC had made certain remarks in relation to medical insurance companies in general.
Plaintiff No. 1 ’s grievance is that, arising from the proceedings in the said consumer complaint, defendant No. 1 has put-out allegedly offensive content against plaintiff No. 1 company on social media. Furthermore, it is plaintiff No. 1’s contention that the allegedly offensive content put-out by defendant No.1 also refers to an order dated 19.08.2026 issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (‘IRDAI’) barring plaintiff No. 1 from opening a new place for business for a period of 06 months, arising from certain regulatory violations committed by plaintiff No.1. Plaintiff No.2, who was the Advocate representing plaintiff No.1, also claims similar relief against defendant No.1 based on similar allegations. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the plaintiffs contends that, by publishing allegedly offensive content on his social media accounts/handles, defendant No.1 has infringed plaintiff No.1 ’s registered trade mark by harming plaintiff No.1 ’s reputation in India.
On a pointed question, learned counsel for the plaintiffs confirms that defendant No.1 is not in the insurance business nor is he connected with such business in any manner. Counsel for the plaintiffs however submits that, since defendant No.1 is a social media influencer, he is trying to gain views and traction on his social media accounts and handles by disparaging plaintiff No. 1’s services, which amounts to infringement of plaintiff No.1’s trade mark in view of the afore-cited sections.
Upon a conspectus of the foregoing, this court is of the view that since it is the admitted position that defendant No.1 is not in the insurance business nor is he in any manner connected with such business, and considering the context in which the allegedly offensive or disparaging content has allegedly been put-out by defendant No.1 on his social media accounts/handles, the use of the plaintiff’s trade mark or trade name merely to refer to plaintiff No. 1 does not amount to defendant No. 1 using plaintiff No. 1 ’s trade mark “in the course of trade” or in any other manner, or for any purpose as contemplated in section 29 of the Trade Marks Act.
At this stage, after the order had been dictated, learned counsel for the plaintiffs seek leave to withdraw the present suit with liberty to file the plaintiffs’ claim as an ordinary civil suit, as may be permissible, in accordance with law. 17. 18. 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. That being said, in view of the request made by learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, the suit is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject however to the plaintiffs paying notional costs of Re. 1/- to defendant No.1.