Dominant Component and Initial Interest Confusion in Indian Trademark Law
Introduction: The present case, Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr., decided by the Delhi High Court on 4th July 2025, presents a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence concerning the protection of well-known marks in the pharmaceutical sector. The Court adjudicated upon the alleged infringement of the well-known registered trademark ‘Liv.52’ by the appellant’s mark ‘Liv-333’. Through this decision, the Court not only reinforced the doctrine of initial interest confusion in trademark law but also stressed the sanctity of judicial orders, particularly in the context of medicinal products and consumer safety.
Factual Background:Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., the respondent, is a globally recognized pharmaceutical entity, renowned for its ayurvedic liver formulation sold under the trademark ‘Liv.52’. The mark ‘Liv.52’ has been in continuous use since 1955 and was formally registered in India under Class 5 in 1957. The company holds several registrations for formative marks such as ‘Liv.52 PROTEC’, ‘Liv.52 HB’, and ‘Liv.52 HAEMOTEC’, all of which enjoy substantial goodwill and consumer recognition.
In January 2024, the respondents became aware that Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd., the appellant, was manufacturing and selling liver-related medicinal products under the mark ‘Liv-333’. Despite the issuance of a cease-and-desist notice dated 17 January 2024, the appellant continued the use of the impugned mark. A commercial invoice from 2015 indicated that the use of ‘Liv-333’ had persisted for some time. Subsequently, the respondents instituted CS (Comm) 433/2024 seeking a permanent injunction and other reliefs.
Procedural Background:The learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court issued summons in the suit on 24 May 2024 and granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the mark ‘Liv-333’. Despite this, the appellant continued its infringing activities, leading to the initiation of contempt proceedings. The appellant failed to file a written statement within the statutorily prescribed time. The Court, by its order dated 23 January 2025, closed the right of the appellant to file the written statement. The appellant did not challenge this order, thereby allowing it to attain finality.
Invoking Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the learned Single Judge decreed the suit in favor of the respondents, awarded ₹20 lakhs in damages (₹10 lakhs each from the two defendants), and ₹10,91,567 as litigation costs. The appellant then filed the present appeal under Section 13A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Section 96 CPC, challenging the decree.
Core Dispute:The core dispute was whether the appellant’s use of the trademark ‘Liv-333’ constituted infringement of the respondents’ registered mark ‘Liv.52’, and if so, whether the learned Single Judge rightly exercised his discretion under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to decree the suit without trial? An ancillary issue was whether damages and costs awarded by the Single Judge were legally justified.
Discussion on Judgments:In support of their respective positions, both parties relied on precedent. The appellant’s counsel cited S.B.L. Ltd. v. The Himalaya Drug Co., (1997) 67 DLT 803 (DB), to argue that the term “Liv” was generic and commonly used in trademarks for liver-related pharmaceutical preparations. However, the Division Bench clarified that the said judgment arose from an appeal against an interim order under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and held only a prima facie view.
The Court instead relied heavily on the binding precedent in Himalaya Drug Co. v. S.B.L. Ltd., 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5701, where it was held that “Liv” constituted the essential and dominant feature of the mark ‘Liv.52’, and that even the use of “LIV” in isolation by another party could result in confusion and amount to infringement.
The Court also referred to Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, which emphasized that in the context of medicinal products, courts must exercise heightened caution to prevent consumer confusion, as such confusion could adversely impact public health.
Additionally, the Court applied the “initial interest confusion” doctrine, drawing from Under Armour Inc. v. Anish Agrawal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784, and Under Armour Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd., (2023) 300 DLT 573, to conclude that even initial confusion at the point of consumer attention, regardless of clarity at purchase, is sufficient to prove infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge:The Court noted that the appellant had no legitimate justification for adopting the mark ‘Liv-333’, particularly when the respondents' mark ‘Liv.52’ had a long-standing and well-documented reputation. The judgment highlighted that the addition of numerical suffixes like “333” did not mitigate the likelihood of confusion arising from the identical prefix “Liv”, which was the dominant and distinctive element of the respondents’ trademark.
The Division Bench categorically rejected the appellant’s claim that ‘Liv’ was generic or publici juris. Relying on the reasoning from South India Beverages Pvt. Ltd. v. General Mills Marketing Inc., (2015) 61 PTC 231 (Del) (DB), the Court held that even under the anti-dissection rule enshrined in Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, the dominant feature of a composite mark can be protected. The court emphasized that the mark must be considered as a whole, but consumer perception is guided by the most memorable part — in this case, “Liv”.
The Court also dismissed the appellant’s contention that differences in packaging, price, and form (capsule vs tablet) ruled out any confusion. Citing Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980, the Bench reiterated that infringement analysis is concerned with mark-to-mark comparison, not the manner of trade dress or marketing.
With respect to procedural compliance, the Court found no fault in the invocation of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC by the Single Judge, particularly in light of the appellant’s failure to file a written statement despite several opportunities.
Final Decision:The Delhi High Court upheld the learned Single Judge’s decision granting a permanent injunction restraining the appellant from using the infringing mark ‘Liv-333’. However, considering that the decree also involved a money component, the Division Bench issued notice only on the aspect of costs and damages. The operation of that part of the order was stayed, subject to the appellant depositing the awarded amount with the Registry within eight weeks. The injunction against the use of ‘Liv-333’ remained intact and was not interfered with.
Law Settled in This Case:This case reinforces the principle that in pharmaceutical trademarks, even a partial imitation involving a dominant component of a registered mark can amount to infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act. The Court affirmed the relevance of the initial interest confusion doctrine in Indian trademark law. It also clarified that the procedural discretion granted under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC can be validly exercised in the absence of a written statement, particularly when the party in default has flagrantly disregarded judicial orders. Additionally, it reiterated that even coined or semi-descriptive terms, once associated with a brand and registered, enjoy trademark protection against deceptively similar imitations, especially when consumer health and safety are at stake.
Case Title: Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr.: Date of Order: 04 July 2025: Case Number: RFA(OS) (COMM) 18/2025: Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5307:Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi:Judges: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
