factual and procedural background Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy and its group have been using the trademark Jiva since 1992 for Ayurvedic medicines wellness centres and related services and have built substantial reputation through registrations sales and advertising. In 2018 the Sharma family associated with the well-known Baidyanath brand registered the mark Shatam Jeeva in Class 5 and later launched a wellness retreat under that name in 2021 to mark 100 years of Baidyanath adding the words By Baidyanath and using a distinct logo with herbs and the letter S. In 2022 Jiva discovered the retreat when a customer inquired about it and sent a legal notice alleging infringement and passing off. Jiva then filed a commercial suit seeking permanent injunction and also applied for a temporary injunction. The commercial court at Tis Hazari granted the temporary injunction restraining the Sharmas from using Shatam Jeeva finding the marks deceptively similar. The Sharmas appealed to the division bench of the Delhi High Court.
dispute in question The core dispute was whether the Sharmas use of the mark Shatam Jeeva for their wellness retreat infringed Jiva’s registered trademarks or amounted to passing off by creating confusion or riding on Jiva’s goodwill.
reasoning and decision of court The division bench examined both marks as a whole including their visual phonetic and overall commercial impression. The court found no deceptive similarity because Shatam Jeeva is a composite mark with different spelling colour scheme artwork and the clear distinguishing phrase By Baidyanath while Jiva’s mark features a lotus and different styling. The bench held that an average consumer would not be confused and that Jiva could not claim monopoly over the common Sanskrit word Jeeva without proving secondary meaning. The court also noted that Jiva failed to establish essential ingredients of passing off such as misrepresentation and damage. Finding the commercial court’s order perverse and contrary to settled principles the division bench allowed the appeal set aside the injunction and permitted the Sharmas to continue using their mark.
one important legal point settled in this case In trademark disputes involving composite marks courts must compare the rival marks as a whole under the anti-dissection rule rather than focusing only on one common or dominant element to decide if there is any likelihood of confusion.
Anuradha Sharma Vs Jiva Ayurvedic: 21.04.2026, Case Number: FAO (COMM) 334/2025 & CM. APPL. 75353/2025, Neutral Citation: Not Provided, Name of court and Judge: High Court of Delhi, Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla.
Disclaimer: Donot treat this as substitute for legal advise as it may contain subjective errors. Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
#IPUpdate #IPCaselaw #IPCaseLaw #IPLaw #IPRNews #IPIndiaupdate #Trademark #Copyright #DesignLaw #PatentLaw #Law #Legal #IndianIPUpdate #AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman #IPAdjutor
