Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Infringement Of Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Trademark, Imposes ₹30.91 Lakh In Costs & Damages

The Delhi High Court has issued a permanent injunction in favour of the personal care and herbal health company Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd against trademark infringement of its 'Liv.52' products used for liver care by manufacturers and sellers of infringing 'Liv-333' goods.Justice Mini Pushkarna remarked that as the goods are medicinal products, the risk of deception among consumers, medical practitioners and pharmacists must be examined with greater caution as any confusion could have serious consequences for public health. It observed “Furthermore, considering that the goods in question are medicinal products, even a minimal degree of confusion can have serious consequences for public health, as mistaken identity of the products may lead to adverse medical effects or improper treatment. Therefore, the risk of deception must be assessed with greater caution, and the defendants' unauthorised use of the impugned mark cannot be permitted, as it creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers, medical practitioners, and pharmacists.”Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd (plaintiff) filed a suit against manufacturer Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited (defendant no. 2) and sellers (defendant no. 1) of the capsules and tonic under the Liv-333 mark. Himalaya stated that its product under the mark 'Liv.52' is a natural remedy for improving liver function and is sold under the 'HIMALAYA' trademark. Himalaya submitted that it came across several infringing products on various e-commerce websites such as Amazon, Flipkart, JioMart and IndiaMart. It stated that upon conducting online searches, it came across an invoice of the defendants dated 23 April 2015, which showed commercial use of the impugned Liv-333 mark.On 24 May 2024, the Court had issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, where the defendants were restrained from dealing in goods and packaging bearing the infringing mark. As the defendants did not file any written statement, the Court proceeded with a summary judgment under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. The Court noted that the sales figures furnished by the defendants indicate that they continued to sell products under the impugned Liv-333 mark, despite the ad-interim injunction against them. Comparing Himalaya's Liv.52 and the efendant's Liv-333 mark, the Court stated that the defendants have clearly infringed upon the LIV mark by adding 333 to it. It noted that the LIV is an essential feature of Himalaya's mark and that the impugned mark does not sufficiently distinguish itself from Himalaya's mark.“The use of the term “LIV” as the essential element in both marks creates a high degree of similarity, leading to a likelihood of confusion among consumers. The mere addition of the numeral “333” does not alter the overall impression of the mark, as the primary and most recognizable component remains identical.”The Court thus issued a permanent injunction in favour of Himalaya, restraining the defendants from dealing in goods with the infringing mark.The Court observed that the defendants received undue commercial benefit from the unauthorized use of the impugned mark and continued to sell it despite the injunction order. It thus imposed costs and damages on the defendants. It granted Rs. 10.91 cost of the suit in favour of Himalaya. It further imposed damages of Rs. 10 lakh each on defendant nos. 1 and 2, to be paid to Himalaya. Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & AnrCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 330Click Here To Read/Download Order

Delhi High Court Permanently Restrains Infringement Of Himalaya's 'Liv.52' Trademark, Imposes ₹30.91 Lakh In Costs & Damages

Sanjana Dadmi

Tags