Now Reading: Delhi High Court: naming a firm in criticism is not trademark infringement
-
01
Delhi High Court: naming a firm in criticism is not trademark infringement
Delhi High Court: naming a firm in criticism is not trademark infringement
The Story in Brief
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: 2 sources, 2 neutral
Sources (2): verdictum.in (neutral report), livemint.com (neutral report)
This brief was synthesised by AI from the 2 sources linked above, so one read covers every framing they carry. Methodology and corrections.
