Delhi High Court imposed Re 1 in costs on Niva Bupa for misusing the special jurisdiction under the IPD Rules, highlighting limits on using trademark suits to counter criticism.
Delhi HC Slaps Re 1 Cost on Niva Bupa for Frivolous Trademark Suit
In a symbolic rebuke, the Delhi High Court imposed nominal costs of Re 1 on Niva Bupa Health Insurance in Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal, finding that the insurer had misused the special jurisdiction of the court under the Intellectual Property Division (IPD) Rules. The plaintiff had filed a trademark infringement suit primarily to counter negative public commentary, which the court held fell within permissible criticism, not actionable disparagement.
The court emphasized that while the IPD Rules permit claims involving disparagement, mere criticism—even if harsh—does not constitute legal injury. The decision questions the trend of using IP litigation as a tool to silence public feedback, especially by large corporations. The court noted that
"jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a sword to suppress speech merely because it is unflattering."
For IP lawyers, the ruling reinforces the need to assess the legitimacy of a claim before filing in the IPD. Courts may increasingly scrutinize pleadings for malice or forum shopping. Re 1 awards, though nominal, may become a standard tool to deter strategic litigation abuse without denying access to justice.
Citations
- Niva Bupa v. Vishal Rattewal (2026)
