Delhi High Court
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr vs Ms Ab Allcare Herbal & Ors on 7 April, 2026
Author: Jyoti Singh
Bench: Jyoti Singh
$~24
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision: 7th April, 2026
+ CS(COMM) 675/2024, I.As. 36095/2024, 36097/2024, 46038/2024,
3084/2025
HIMALAYA GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD & ANR......Plaintiffs
Through: Mr. Vishal Nagpal, Mr. Debjyoti
Sarkar and Mr. Bal Krishan Singh, Advocates.
versus
MS AB ALLCARE HERBAL & ORS. .....Defendants
Through: Mr. Abhimanyu Yadav and Mr.
Prannoy Dey, Advocates for D5.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH
JUDGEMENT
JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL)
1. This suit is instituted by the Plaintiffs inter alia for a decree of
permanent injunction restraining the Defendants and all others acting on
their behalf from selling, manufacturing, distributing, advertising,
exporting, offering for sale or in any other manner dealing with goods/
packaging bearing infringing mark Liv-40 and/or any other mark
identical/deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ registered Liv.52 trademarks
resulting in infringement.
2. On 09.08.2024, by an ex parte ad interim order, Court restrained the
Defendants from selling, distributing, advertising etc., products bearing
infringing mark Liv-40 and/or any other mark deceptively similar to
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 1 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
Plaintiffs’ registered Liv.52 trademarks and the trade dress/packaging
related thereto, so as to amount to infringement and/or passing off.
Defendants were also restrained from manufacturing, selling, distributing
etc., their products using HIMALAYA trademark/logo and the trade
dress/packaging associated therewith, more particularly, the color
combination of green, orange and white, so as to resulting in passing off
albeit Defendants were permitted to carry on their business without using
the impugned trademarks and/or trade dress/packaging. Interim order has
continued till date.
3. Summons were served on Defendants No. 1 to 3 on 16.09.2024 and
they filed written statement on 15.01.2025, which was beyond 120 days,
which expired on 14.01.2025. Accordingly, the written statement was not
taken on record. Right of Defendant No. 4 to file written statement was
closed vide order dated 23.04.2025 and pleadings qua Defendant No. 5 are
complete. None appears on behalf of Defendants No. 1-4 and as per record,
there has been no appearance on their behalf continuously since 23.05.2025.
Even the cost imposed on Defendants No. 1-3 has not been paid. It appears
that Defendants No. 1-4 are not interested in contesting the suit and are set
ex parte.
4. Learned counsel for Defendant No. 5, on instructions, submits that if
Plaintiffs do not press for costs, said Defendant has no objection in suffering
a decree of permanent injunction.
5. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs, on instructions, submits that
Plaintiffs shall not press their claim for costs against Defendants No. 4 and 5
but would do so against Defendants No. 1-3 and also give up the relief of
rendition of account and damages against all Defendants.
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 2 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
6. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and counsel for Defendant
No. 5.
7. Present suit is filed by the Plaintiffs for permanent injunction
restraining Defendants from infringing their registered trademark Liv.52 and
its variants as also its attendant trade dress/packaging and the HIMALAYA
trademarks/logos in respect of identical goods i.e., capsules and syrup for
liver care and healthcare goods sold by Defendants, respectively. For ready
reference, registrations in respect of trademark Liv.52 and its variants in
Class 05 are as follows:-
8. As stated in the plaint, the aforesaid registrations are valid and
subsisting. Plaintiffs have placed on record copies of certificate as also
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 3 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
invoices showing sales of products under trademark Liv.52 and its variants
reflecting exponential increase in yearly turnover and have also
demonstrated that in the year 2023-2024, the sale value was Rs. 634.73
crores. Plaintiffs have made significant investments towards promotion and
advertisement of their goods bearing trademark Liv.52 and its variants
through electronic and print media globally including India. The trademark
has acquired immense goodwill and reputation and is exclusively associated
with the Plaintiffs as a source identifier. Liv.52 is the signature brand of the
Plaintiffs and was included in the Limca Book of Records as India’s highest
selling herbal drug and as on the date of the filing of the suit, Plaintiffs were
selling around 1 billion tablets and 13 million syrup bottles under the
trademark Liv.52 every year across the globe. Plaintiffs have placed on
record copy of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in The
Himalaya Drug Company v. M/s. SBL Limited, RFA(OS) No. 90/2010,
decided on 09.11.2012, whereby the Respondent therein was restrained from
using the mark ‘LIV’ as part of its trademark ‘LIV-T’ in respect of
medicinal preparations observing that even in isolation, use of the impugned
mark was an infringement of prominent feature of Plaintiff’s trademark.
Hence, by using the impugned mark Liv-40, Defendants have infringed the
registered mark Liv.52 of the Plaintiffs, as the impugned mark is deceptively
similar and is used for identical goods being capsules and syrup for liver
care. The rival marks being deceptively similar and goods being identical, it
is inevitable that there will be confusion amongst members of public and
potential consumers and as held by the Supreme Court in Cadila Healthcare
Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73, public interest
would support lesser degree of proof showing confusing similarity in case of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 4 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
trademarks in respect of medicinal products as against non-medicinal
products. Plaintiffs also assert and rightly so, common law rights in the
trademark and seek restraint against Defendants from passing off their goods
as those of the Plaintiffs, since Defendants have been misrepresenting to the
public that their goods have some association with the Plaintiffs, in order to
encash on their formidable reputation and goodwill, thereby causing
irreparable harm and injury to the goodwill of the Plaintiffs. Defendants are
thus liable to be restrained from infringing Plaintiffs’ trademarks as also
from passing off.
9. Insofar as HIMALAYA trademarks/logo is
concerned, the same was conceived, developed and adopted by the Plaintiffs
in 2001 and has a unique style and distinctive get-up, including its colour
combination of green, orange and white with the device of orange leaf. Over
the time, Plaintiffs have made some variations ,
albeit the distinctive elements have
remained unchanged and the logo has been a constant along with
green and orange colour combination. Plaintiffs have placed on
record documents in the form of Chartered Accoutant’s certificates to reflect
Plaintiff No. 2’s turnover of the products sold under HIMALAYA brand
since 2001 as also expenses incurred on promotion as follows, which
indicates their growing goodwill and reputation:-
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 5 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 6 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
10. Basis the immense goodwill and reputation, Plaintiffs assert common
law rights in HIMALAYA trademarks. Defendants have dishonestly
imitated the HIMALAYA trademarks so as to come as close as possible to
the Plaintiffs in respect of identical goods. As brought out in the plaint, the
impugned logo is deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ trademark/logo in terms
of stylization, get-up, appearance, colour combination of green, orange and
white and also includes the leaf device. For ready reference, the rival
trademarks are as follows:-
11. As can be seen from the comparative, Defendants have adopted
deceptively similar trademark in respect of identical goods i.e., healthcare
goods. The consumer base and trade channels being common, there is every
likelihood of confusion amongst members of public and hence, Defendants
are liable to be restrained from passing off the goods of the Plaintiffs by
mispresenting to the public that their goods have any association with those
of the Plaintiffs as this is leading to irreparable damage to reputation and
goodwill of the Plaintiffs, which they have successfully demonstrated
from the sales figures by way of invoices and Chartered Accountant’s
certificates.
12. In light of the aforesaid, this suit is decreed in favour of the Plaintiffs
and against the Defendants in terms of paragraph 70(a), (b), (c), (d) and (i),
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 7 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
save and except, the relief of costs which the Plaintiffs do not press against
Defendant No. 5.
13. Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet.
14. Suit stands disposed of along with pending applications.
15. Plaintiffs shall file their bill of costs before 20.04.2026, on which date
the matter will be placed before the Taxing Officer for computation of costs
in terms of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and 2018 Rules read with Delhi
High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022.
JYOTI SINGH, J
APRIL 7, 2026/YA
Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 675/2024 Page 8 of 8
By:KAMAL KUMAR
Signing Date:14.04.2026
17:46:57
