# Delhi High Court: naming a firm in criticism is not trademark infringement 2026-10-20T09:37:00+00:00 | Governance | Indian Opinion Desk Corroboration: 2 independent outlets The Delhi High Court has ruled that a social media influencer using a company's trademark or trade name to refer to it in critical posts does not amount to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as long as the influencer is not in the same business. Justice Anup J Bhambhani held that Vishal Rattewal, who is not in the insurance business, was not using Niva Bupa's mark 'in the course of trade'. The court permitted Niva Bupa Health Insurance to withdraw its suit against Rattewal with liberty to file a fresh civil suit, subject to paying notional costs of Re 1 to the influencer. The insurer had sought a permanent injunction, removal of content from Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X, an apology, and Rs 5 crore in damages over Rattewal's posts that cited a consumer complaint ruling and an IRDAI order barring the company from opening new locations for six months. Justice Bhambhani observed that filing the suit in the court's Intellectual Property Division amounted to misuse of its special jurisdiction. The court initially directed the plaint to be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the CPC, before allowing withdrawal. ## Indian Opinion Analysis Both sources report the same order from the Delhi High Court. Verdictum.in leads with the court's broad legal observation that naming a company in critical social media posts does not infringe a trademark under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. It quotes the judgment directly and provides the full cause title and appearances. Livemint.com frames the story around the phrase 'misuse of the Intellectual Property Division', foregrounding a warning to large corporations not to use specialised courts to intimidate critics. Livemint also adds an explicit 'Why Re 1 fine' section calling it a gentle warning. The difference is presentational: Verdictum.in offers a legal-document style, Livemint an explainer with broader implications. Neither outlet omits any key fact, and the substance of the ruling is identical. Both report that the plaintiffs may refile as an ordinary civil suit, subject to paying Re 1. ## Coverage Coverage: 2 sources, 2 neutral - verdictum.in (neutral report) Leads with legal observation and uses direct judgment quote, neutral court-report style. - livemint.com (neutral report) Frames as warning against misuse of specialised courts, adds explainer box on fine. This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Tags: Delhi High Court, IRDAI, Justice Anup J Bhambhani, Niva Bupa Health Insurance, Trade Marks Act 1999, Vishal Rattewal Canonical: https://indianopinion.org/delhi-high-court-naming-a-firm-in-criticism-is-not-trademark-infringement/ License: Summary and commentary (c) Indian Opinion, reusable with attribution. Facts belong to the linked sources. Cite: https://indianopinion.org/delhi-high-court-naming-a-firm-in-criticism-is-not-trademark-infringement/#story-in-brief How this brief was made: an AI model read the reports linked above and wrote this summary and analysis, which were published automatically. Published briefs are sampled every hour by an automated quality check; the editor verifies its findings and approves corrections, and corrected briefs carry a dated correction line. Stance labels are editorial classifications of how each outlet framed this story, assigned by the same model, not ratings of the outlets. We do no original reporting. Methodology: https://indianopinion.org/ai-use-policy/