Delhi High Court: Using a Company's Trademark on Social Media Merely to Refer to It Is Not Infringement
The Delhi High Court has held that a social media influencer's use of a company's trademark or trade name merely to refer to the company in allegedly offensive or disparaging posts does not amount to trademark infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, when the person is neither in that business nor connected with it.
Justice A. J. Bhambhani said that since it was admitted that defendant No. 1 is not in the insurance business and is not connected with it in any manner, and given the context in which the allegedly offensive content was posted on his social media accounts, the use of the plaintiff's trademark or trade name merely to refer to plaintiff No. 1 did not amount to using the mark "in the course of trade" or for any purpose contemplated under Section 29 of the Act.
The order came in a suit by Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited and another plaintiff against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal. The plaintiffs had sought a permanent injunction and directions to take down, remove and disable content posted on his Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X accounts. They also sought an apology, Rs. 5 crore in damages, litigation costs and other reliefs. They argued that the posts infringed Niva Bupa's registered trademark under Section 29(4)(c) read with Section 29(8).
The dispute traced back to a consumer complaint by Neeraj Kumar against Niva Bupa over a medical insurance claim. The complaint ended in an order dated October 9, 2024, by the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, Charkhi Dadri, Haryana, in the complainant's favour, and the Commission made certain remarks about medical insurance companies in general. Niva Bupa's grievance was that, arising from those proceedings, Rattewal posted allegedly offensive content against the company. The company also contended that the content referred to an order dated August 19, 2026, issued by the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), barring it from opening a new place of business for six months over certain regulatory violations.
The Court held that the suit was not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division, since it did not relate to infringement of any intellectual property right of either plaintiff. It initially directed that the plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to be presented before a court with the proper subject-matter jurisdiction. After the order was dictated, the plaintiffs' counsel sought leave to withdraw the suit with liberty to file their claim as an ordinary civil suit as permissible in law.
The Court allowed the withdrawal with liberty to file afresh for the same cause of action, subject to the plaintiffs paying notional costs of Re. 1 to defendant No. 1. It also directed the Registry to take appropriate steps for return of the plaint, while pending applications were disposed of. Advocates Ankur Khandelwal and Suhail Sehgal appeared for the petitioners and respondents respectively.
Source: Verdictum