The Delhi High Court imposed notional costs of Re. 1 in a trademark suit, finding the plaintiff's choice of jurisdiction to be a misuse. The ruling highlights judicial scrutiny of tactical forum selection in IP disputes.
Delhi HC Flags Misuse of IP Jurisdiction in Niva Bupa Suit
In a notable ruling, the Delhi High Court in Niva Bupa Health Insurance Ltd. v. Vishal Rattewal imposed notional costs of Re. 1 after determining that the plaintiff had misused the special jurisdiction conferred by the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules. The suit, alleging trademark infringement and passing off, was found to lack a proper territorial nexus, prompting the court to intervene against what it perceived as forum shopping.
The court emphasized that while the IPD Rules allow for jurisdiction where a defendant is personally served, this cannot be invoked to negate the traditional requirement of a substantial cause of action arising in the jurisdiction. The plaintiff's attempt to base jurisdiction solely on the ability to serve notice within Delhi, absent other connecting factors, was held to be an abuse of process.
The jurisdiction under the IPD Rules is not a licence to bypass the settled principles of civil jurisdiction, the court observed.
The decision underscores the judiciary’s increasing vigilance against procedural manipulation in intellectual property litigation. For practitioners, this signals that trademark suits must be carefully grounded in proper territorial jurisdiction, especially when relying on the IPD framework. The Re. 1 cost, though symbolic, serves as a deterrent against strategic forum selection. This approach aligns with broader judicial trends of preventing litigation abuse under commercial IP regimes.
Citations
- Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal, 2026
