Re. 1 Fine for Misusing IP Jurisdiction in Trademark Suit

Delhi HC Imposes Re. 1 Cost in Niva Bupa Suit Over Jurisdictional Misuse

The Delhi High Court recently dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by Niva Bupa against Vishal Rattewal and imposed notional costs of Re. 1, holding that the plaintiffs had misused the special jurisdiction available under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015. The court criticized the attempt to forum-shop by invoking the jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) without substantive justification, calling it an abuse of process.

The plaintiffs alleged trademark infringement and disparagement concerning online criticism of their insurance services. However, the court noted that the primary relief sought—restraining negative publicity—was not a core trademark cause of action and could have been pursued in a more appropriate forum. While the IPD Rules, 2023, permit claims involving disparagement to be heard in the IPD, the court emphasized that this does not justify routing general reputation disputes through IP channels. The court referenced Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. v. Super Cassettes Industries Ltd. to underscore that special jurisdiction must not be misused.

By awarding only Re. 1 in costs, the court sent a symbolic yet clear message: misuse of procedural advantages will be penalized, even if the penalty is nominal. This reflects a growing judicial trend to curb strategic litigant behavior in IP cases, particularly where claims are dressed as IP to gain forum benefits.

For practitioners, this ruling serves as a caution against aggressive jurisdictional assertions in hybrid disputes. Courts are likely to scrutinize the true nature of claims, and mere labeling as a trademark or disparagement case may not suffice. The decision reaffirms that procedural safeguards exist to prevent tactical manipulation of IP fora.