Delhi High Court imposes ₹1 cost on Niva Bupa over ₹5 crore suit against influencer

Delhi High Court imposes ₹1 cost on Niva Bupa over ₹5 crore suit against influencer left Image used for representational purpose only.

The Hindu The Hindu https://th-i.thgim.com/public/incoming/kmym4t/article71605665.ece/alternates/FREE_1200/Woman-can-be-chG6NGM1OL2.3.jpg.jpg Arshitha Kanakaraj _12594 New Delhi, India - 17 Mar, 2022 - New emblem of High Court of Delhi on the entrance gate.

High court is the highest courts of appellate jurisdiction Justice Anup J.

Bhambhani, in an order passed on September 21, observed that merely using an insurance company’s name or trademark to identify it in social media posts did not, in the circumstances of the case, amount to trademark infringement The Delhi High Court has imposed a token cost of ₹1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance Company Limited for invoking its Intellectual Property Division to pursue a ₹5 crore suit against social media influencer Vishal Rattewal over allegedly disparaging posts, holding that the dispute did not involve trademark infringement.

IRDAI bars Acko General, Niva Bupa Health from opening new branches for exceeding EoM limits storyline 1 Justice Anup J.

Bhambhani, in an order passed on September 21, observed that merely using an insurance company’s name or trademark to identify it in social media posts did not, in the circumstances of the case, amount to trademark infringement.

Niva Bupa had approached the court seeking the removal of allegedly disparaging posts published in late August this year by Mr.

Rattewal on Instagram, Facebook, YouTube and X.

Intellectual property rights in the digital age Intellectual property rights in the digital age In this era of digital content creators, it is extremely important to understand what an intellectual property right is, how to file one and a few examples of its importance as a content producer from the past Intellectual property rights in the digital age storyline It submitted that Mr.

Rattewal, a social media influencer and content creator with a substantial following, had deliberately used its distinctive name, trademarks, logo and other brand identifiers, including ‘NIVA BUPA’, prominently in the titles, thumbnails, captions, visual presentation and content of his publications.

The company alleged that he had simultaneously associated the brand with allegations of “fraud, dishonesty, deception, and unfair trade practices”.

It sought an apology, ₹5 crore in damages and litigation costs, alleging that the content had harmed its reputation and infringed its registered trademark.

Google challenges order in Hindware trademark case, HC issues notice Google challenges order in Hindware trademark case, HC issues notice Senior advocate Abhishek Singhvi sought interim stay of the direction to pay damages; he argued that the single Bench’s judgment was not in line with the earlier decisions and globally acceptable practices Google challenges order in Hindware trademark case, HC issues notice storyline 1 The dispute stemmed from a consumer complaint filed by Mr.

Neeraj Kumar against the insurer before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission in Charkhi Dadri, Haryana.

In an order passed on October 9, 2024, the commission ruled in Mr.

Kumar’s favour and made certain observations concerning medical insurance companies.

Niva Bupa alleged that Mr.

Rattewal subsequently published offensive and disparaging content about the company in connection with the consumer proceedings.

In this backdrop, Niva Bupa contended that, by publishing allegedly offensive content on his social media accounts, Mr.

Rattewal has infringed its registered trade mark by harming its reputation in India.

The court, however, held that Mr.

Rattewal was neither engaged in the insurance business nor connected with it.

Using Niva Bupa’s name or trademark to identify the company in the alleged posts did not amount to use “in the course of trade” or constitute infringement under the Trade Marks Act, it said. “In the opinion of this court, this suit is not maintainable before the Intellectual Property Division of this court, since it is not a matter relating to infringement of any intellectual property right of either of the plaintiffs,” the court held.

After the court dictated its order returning the plaint, Niva Bupa sought permission to withdraw the suit and pursue its claims through an ordinary civil action.

The court allowed the request, granting them liberty to file a fresh suit on the same cause of action, subject to payment of ₹1 as costs to Mr.

Rattewal.