Calcutta High Court Temporarily Bars Use of 'Liv.72' Mark Over Similarity With Himalaya's Liv.52

The Calcutta High Court on Tuesday temporarily restrained Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and its associate from using the mark “Liv.72” for a health product, holding that it is deceptively similar to Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd.'s well-known liver health product “Liv.52.”

A single bench of Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur observed that the long-standing trademark and packaging associated with “Liv.52” had been prima facie infringed and that the continued sale of the rival product was likely to cause consumer confusion and deception.

The court recorded that Himalaya has been in business since 1930 and that its liver health product “Liv.52” was adopted by its predecessor as early as 1955. The company stated that it holds multiple trademark registrations for “Liv.52,” including a word mark registration granted in 1957 with a user claim dating back to 1955.

The court noted that the product has been sold continuously for several decades and has acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the market.,

Himalaya informed the court that in October 2025 it became aware of a competing product being marketed under the name “Liv.72.” Consequently, it instituted a suit alleging infringement of its trademark, trade dress and copyright, as well as passing off.

Upon a comparison of the rival products, It found that the disputed mark “Liv.72” and its packaging bore an overall visual appearance that was deceptively similar to that of “Liv.52.”

It noted that the rival product adopted a similar green, white and orange colour combination, along with an overall get-up closely resembling Himalaya's packaging.

“Prima facie it appears that the respondents' adoption of the impugned mark “Liv.72,” is obviously calculated to cause confusion and deception in the market. There are overwhelming similarities between the two products,” the court observed.

The court further noted that the rival company had applied for registration of the mark “Liv.72” on a “proposed to be used” basis, which was subsequently rejected. Despite the rejection, the product continued to be sold in the market, which, according to the Court, “is prima facie evidence of bad faith.”

Holding that Himalaya had established a strong prima facie case, the court granted interim relief restraining the respondents from using the disputed mark and packaging in terms of the prayers sought.

The matter will next be listed on January 7, 2026.