Delhi High Court imposed Re. 1 nominal costs on Niva Bupa for misusing IPD jurisdiction in a trademark suit seen as targeting negative reviews. The ruling signals judicial reluctance to entertain IP claims meant to suppress public criticism.
Delhi HC Flags Misuse of IPD Jurisdiction in Niva Bupa Case
In Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal, the Delhi High Court dismissed a trademark infringement suit and imposed nominal costs of Re. 1, observing that the plaintiff attempted to misuse the special jurisdiction of the Intellectual Property Division (IPD). The suit stemmed from online criticism of Niva Bupa’s services, which the insurer claimed damaged its brand via unauthorized use of its mark.
The Court found insufficient evidence of commercial passing off and noted the defendant’s non-commercial, disparaging use was arguably within IPD Rules’ contemplation of 'disparagement'. The Re. 1 penalty—symbolic in nature—aligns with growing judicial skepticism towards Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), especially in healthcare and consumer rights contexts.
This decision reinforces that IPD jurisdiction must not be weaponised to silence public discourse. Practitioners must assess bona fides before filing; courts may increasingly penalise meritless claims aimed at chilling free speech. The ruling may influence future abuse-of-process arguments in IP litigation.
Citations
- Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal (2026)
