Delhi High Court: A suit was filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. (plaintiff) seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiff’s trademarks and logo, ‘Liv.52’ and 
The plaintiffs, Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and another entity, are leading global herbal health and personal care organizations, founded in 1930, and are well-known for their iconic product ‘Liv.52’ under the reputed trademark ‘HIMALAYA’. The plaintiffs adopted their distinct HIMALAYA logo in 2001, which has garnered significant reputation and goodwill through continuous use. The plaintiffs also hold registered trademarks and copyright registrations in the HIMALAYA logos.
The plaintiffs’ product ‘Liv.52’ is a natural remedy for improving liver function, in use since 1955, available in various forms like syrup, tablets, and drops. In January 2024, the plaintiffs discovered the sale of goods under the marks ‘Liv-333’ and a logo resembling the HIMALAYA mark on multiple e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, and IndiaMart. The defendants, Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited and another entity, were identified as the manufacturers and sellers of these allegedly infringing goods.
After discovering the alleged infringement, the plaintiffs issued a cease-and-desist notice on 17-01-2024, requesting the defendants to stop using the infringing marks. Despite receiving the notice, the defendants continued the use. Consequently, the plaintiffs filed the present suit seeking a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the marks ‘Liv-333’ and the impugned logo, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants’ use of the marks ‘Liv-333′ and the logo was deceptively similar to their well-known marks, causing confusion among consumers. They argued that the defendants’ actions amounted to trademark infringement, dilution of their brand’s reputation, and unfair competition. The plaintiffs also pointed out that the marks used by the defendants are visibly similar and create a false association with the plaintiffs’ products.
On the other hand, the defendants claimed that they had been using the ‘Liv-333′ mark since 2015, as evidenced by an invoice dated 23-04-2015. They argued that the plaintiffs had acquiesced to their use of the mark by not taking action earlier. Furthermore, the defendants contended that their mark was distinctive and did not resemble the plaintiffs’ trademark.
The Court observed that the plaintiffs’ trademark ‘Liv.52’ and its logo enjoy significant reputation and goodwill in the market. The Court noted that the marks ‘Liv-333′ and the impugned logo adopted by the defendants bore a striking resemblance to the plaintiffs’ registered marks, which could mislead consumers.
The Court rejected the defendants’ claim of acquiescence, stating that the plaintiffs had acted promptly upon discovering the infringement. The Court also emphasized that the defendants’ intention to gain unfair advantage by creating a false association with the plaintiffs’ brand was evident. Further, the defendants failed to establish any legitimate right to use the ‘Liv-333’ mark.
The Court, after considering the evidence and submissions, observed that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The similarity between the marks Liv.52 and Liv-333 was evident in both visual and phonetic aspects. Additionally, the Court noted that the defendants’ mark had no justification or originality, strengthening the plaintiffs’ claims of bad faith.
The Court rejected the defendants’ contention of prior use, citing insufficient evidence to support their claims. The plaintiffs’ well-documented brand history and extensive market presence further tilted the balance in their favor. The Court reiterated that the Trade Marks Act, 1999, provides robust protection against deceptive similarity and affirmed the necessity of maintaining brand identity.
The Court remarked that “upon a bare perusal of the comparison of plaintiffs’ HIMALAYA logo and defendants’ RAJASTHAN logo, hereinabove, it is manifest that no claim of infringement can be carved out with respect of these two marks. Both the marks are entirely distinct – visually, phonetically and structurally. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim of similarity of green-orange colour scheme and the leaf device cannot be upheld. However, upon comparison of the plaintiffs’ “Liv.52” mark with the defendants’ “Liv-333” mark, it is evident that the mark LIV forms the essential feature of the plaintiffs’ “Liv.52” mark and the defendants have clearly infringed upon the said mark by adding a numeral “333”, that does not sufficiently distinguish their mark from that of the plaintiffs. The use of the term “LIV” as the essential element in both marks create a high degree of similarity, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers.”
The Court granted a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark Liv-333 or any deceptively similar mark. The Court also directed the defendants to remove all infringing products from e-commerce platforms and other distribution channels. Additionally, the Court awarded costs of ₹10,91,567 in favour of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were awarded damages amounting to ₹20 Lacs, with defendant nos. 1 and 2 each liable to pay ₹10 Lacs.
[Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. v. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited, CS(COMM) 433/2024, decided on 25.02.2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
Mr. Vishal Nagpal, Ms. Suhrita Majumdar and Mr. Debjyoti Sarkar, Advocates for plaintiff
Ms. Maheravish Rein, Advocate with Ms. Shamshravish Rein, Mr. Aldanish Rein and Mr. Ankush Kalra, Advocates for defendants