The Delhi High Court has ruled in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., granting a permanent injunction against trademark infringement concerning its well-known liver care product, 'Liv.52'. The order restrains Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited and associated sellers from using the infringing 'Liv-333' mark. The court also imposed a total cost and damages of ₹30.91 lakh against the defendants.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, while delivering the judgment, emphasized that medicinal products require stringent scrutiny to prevent consumer confusion, which could lead to adverse health effects.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Orders Delisting of Trademark-Infringing Pizza Outlets from Swiggy and Zomato
"Considering that the goods in question are medicinal products, even a minimal degree of confusion can have serious consequences for public health. The defendants' unauthorized use of the impugned mark creates a likelihood of confusion among consumers, medical practitioners, and pharmacists," the court stated.
Background of the Case
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. filed a lawsuit against Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited and its associated sellers, alleging that their 'Liv-333' product closely resembled Himalaya's registered trademark 'Liv.52'. Himalaya's 'Liv.52' is a widely recognized herbal remedy used to enhance liver function, marketed under the reputed 'HIMALAYA' brand.
Read Also:- Accused Has the Right to Obtain Certified Copies of Chargesheet Documents During Trial: Delhi High Court
Himalaya discovered the infringing product on various e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, JioMart, and IndiaMart. The company found an invoice dated April 23, 2015, indicating commercial use of the 'Liv-333' mark by the defendants.
Court Proceedings and Observations
On May 24, 2024, the Delhi High Court had issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, restraining the defendants from dealing in goods bearing the infringing mark. However, despite the injunction, sales of 'Liv-333' continued, prompting the court to take strict action.
Due to the defendants' failure to submit a written statement within the stipulated time, the court proceeded with a summary judgment under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The defendants' sales figures confirmed continued sales of 'Liv-333' despite the legal restraint.
The court noted that the defendants had deliberately chosen to imitate the essential component of Himalaya's mark, 'LIV', and simply appended '333' to it.
Read Also:- Delhi High Court Accepts Lawyer’s Apology in Contempt Case, Orders Pro Bono Service
"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 sufficiently distinguish the mark from the plaintiff's trademark," the court observed.
Legal Precedents and Rulings
The court referred to a previous ruling in Himalaya Drug Company vs. S.B.L. Limited (2012 SCC OnLine Del 5701), where the respondent was restrained from using the term 'LIV' as part of its trademark. The court reiterated that if a brand has acquired distinctiveness, any deceptive resemblance must be prohibited.
Additionally, citing Cadila Healthcare Ltd. vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001) 5 SCC 73, the court emphasized that pharmaceutical trademarks require heightened protection due to the potential risks involved with mistaken identity.
Imposition of Costs and Damages
Given the defendants' continued infringement and violation of the court's interim order, the court imposed the following penalties:
- ₹10.91 lakh as the cost of the suit, payable to Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd.
- ₹20 lakh in damages, with ₹10 lakh each imposed on Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. (defendant no. 2) and the associated sellers (defendant no. 1).
Case title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr vs. Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited & Anr (CS(COMM) 433/2024)
