Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. Vs. MS AB Allcare Herbal & Ors.:07.04.2026:CS(COMM) 675/2024:2026:DHC:3078: Hon'ble Judge Jyoti Singh
This decision concerns a trademark infringement and passing off action instituted by the Plaintiffs, proprietors of the well-known trademark Liv.52 and the HIMALAYA trade dress, against the Defendants’ use of the impugned mark Liv-40 and a deceptively similar packaging. The Plaintiffs contended that Liv.52 is a registered trademark in Class 05 with substantial goodwill and reputation, supported by extensive sales, advertising, and prior judicial recognition. It was argued that the Defendants’ mark Liv-40, used for identical medicinal products relating to liver care, is deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion, particularly in light of the stricter standard applicable to medicinal products as laid down in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.. The Plaintiffs also alleged imitation of their distinctive trade dress, including the colour combination of green, orange, and white, along with the leaf device forming part of the HIMALAYA branding. Procedurally, the Court noted that Defendants No. 1–4 failed to file their written statement within the prescribed period and were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No. 5 consented to a decree of injunction, subject to waiver of costs.
On merits, the Court held that the impugned mark Liv-40 is deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ registered trademark Liv.52, particularly as both marks are used for identical pharmaceutical goods. The likelihood of confusion was found to be high, given the similarity in marks, nature of goods, and common trade channels. The Court also upheld the Plaintiffs’ claim of passing off, observing that the Defendants had imitated the Plaintiffs’ trade dress to encash upon their established goodwill.
Accordingly, the Court decreed the suit in favour of the Plaintiffs, granting a permanent injunction restraining the Defendants from using the impugned mark and trade dress. The Plaintiffs, however, gave up their claims for damages and rendition of accounts, and costs were not pressed against certain Defendants.
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
