Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Mini Pushkarna has adjudicated in a trademark infringement suit filed by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and another party. The court issued a permanent injunction restraining Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited and another defendant from using the infringing mark "Liv-333." Additionally, the court awarded damages amounting to INR 20 lakhs and legal costs of INR 10,91,567 to the plaintiffs.

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., a multinational entity specializing in herbal healthcare and personal care products, initiated legal proceedings against Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited, alleging trademark infringement. The plaintiffs argued that they had been selling products under the "Liv.52" brand since 1955 and that the mark had acquired significant goodwill and reputation in the pharmaceutical and healthcare industries.

Also Read: Supreme Court Orders Reservation of Treasurer Post for Women in Bengaluru Advocates' Association Elections

The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the "Himalaya" trademark and its associated logos, including the widely recognized "Liv.52" mark. According to the complaint, the defendants began marketing products under the name "Liv-333," a name which, the plaintiffs contended, was deceptively similar to "Liv.52." They argued that the unauthorized use of "Liv-333" in medicinal products was likely to mislead consumers into believing that the defendants' products were affiliated with or endorsed by the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs further contended that the defendants had introduced their "Liv-333" products on various e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, JioMart, and IndiaMart. Upon discovering these listings, the plaintiffs issued a cease-and-desist notice on January 17, 2024, demanding that the defendants discontinue the use of the infringing mark. However, the defendants did not respond to the notice or take corrective action, prompting the plaintiffs to seek legal recourse in the Delhi High Court.

As part of their evidence, the plaintiffs submitted records of trademark registrations, copyright certificates for their logo and packaging designs, and sales data demonstrating the extensive use of "Liv.52" over the decades. They also presented screenshots of the infringing "Liv-333" product listings on various e-commerce platforms and an invoice dated April 23, 2015, purportedly showing commercial use of "Liv-333" by the defendants.

The defendants initially claimed that "Liv-333" was an independently developed mark and denied any intent to mislead consumers. However, they failed to file a written statement within the prescribed legal timeframe, leading the court to proceed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).

The Delhi High Court noted that the plaintiffs had established their rights over the "Liv.52" mark through longstanding use and trademark registrations. The court observed:

"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."

The court relied on precedent from Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Limited (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5701), where it was held that the use of "LIV" as a standalone element in a trademark was sufficient to establish infringement if the competing mark caused consumer confusion. The judgment noted:

"The presence of the mark LIV, which is an essential feature of the registered trademark Liv.52, shall be considered for the purposes of comparison. The use of 'LIV' in isolation, even with the addition of a numeral or suffix, does not sufficiently distinguish the competing mark from the plaintiffs' mark."

The court further stated the heightened need for caution in cases involving medicinal products. Citing Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, the judgment recorded:

"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."

The court noted that the defendants had failed to comply with the court's directive to disclose revenue earned from the sale of "Liv-333" products after an ex-parte ad-interim injunction was issued on May 24, 2024. When the defendants belatedly filed affidavits disclosing sales figures in February 2025, the court observed that they had continued selling the infringing products in violation of the injunction.

Additionally, the court took note of a failed settlement attempt. On January 30, 2025, the defendants offered to resolve the matter by paying INR 3 lakhs, but the plaintiffs rejected the offer, citing the continued violation of the injunction order.

Given the defendants' failure to file a written statement, the court invoked Order VIII Rule 10 CPC, which allows a court to pronounce judgment when a defendant does not submit a written statement within the prescribed period. The judgment noted:

"If the defendant fails to pursue its case or does so in a lackadaisical manner by not filing its written statement, the courts should invoke the provisions of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC to decree such cases."

In view of the defendants' continued and willful infringement of the plaintiffs' "Liv.52" mark despite the subsistence of an ad-interim injunction, the court found it appropriate to impose costs and damages to compensate the plaintiffs for the losses suffered and to deter such unlawful conduct. The defendants, having derived undue commercial benefit from the unauthorized use of the impugned "Liv-333" mark, are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the loss of goodwill, dilution of trademark rights, and unjust enrichment.

The court took note of the affidavit of costs handed over by the learned counsel for the plaintiffs and taken on record during the course of arguments, as per which the plaintiffs have incurred a cost of ₹10,91,567/- in pursuing the present legal proceedings.

Accordingly, the present application is allowed. The suit is decreed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of Para 69(a) and (b) of the plaint. The cost of the suit, i.e., ₹10,91,567/-, is granted in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs are further entitled to damages to the tune of ₹20,00,000/-, payable by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2, i.e., ₹10,00,000/- each.

Also Read: Madras High Court: ‘Revenue Authorities Lack Jurisdiction Over Title Disputes’: Orders Patta Restoration and Directs Temples to Seek Civil Remedy

The payment shall be made by Defendant Nos. 1 and 2 to the plaintiffs within a period of four months. The decree sheet shall be drawn up. The present suit, along with the pending applications, stands disposed of.

 Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Plaintiffs: Mr. Vishal Nagpal, Ms. Suhrita Majumdar, and Mr. Debjyoti Sarkar, Advocates

For the Defendants: Ms. Maheravish Rein, Advocate with Ms. Shamshravish Rein, Mr. Aldanish Rein, and Mr. Ankush Kalra, Advocates

Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr.

Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:1670

Case Number: CS(COMM) 433/2024

Bench: Justice Mini Pushkarna

[Read/Download order]