Himalaya's Liv.52 Trademark Protected: Delhi HC Fines Liv-333 Maker Rs 30 Lakh for Infringement

The court, after examining the evidence and considering the lack of a written statement from the defendants, ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., a well-established brand in herbal health products, has been manufacturing and selling “Liv.52” for liver health since 1955. Over the years, it has become one of the most recognized herbal supplements in India and abroad. The brand “Liv.52” has been trademarked and enjoys strong brand recognition among consumers.

The plaintiffs discovered that the defendants, Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited, were selling “Liv-333”—a liver health supplement—on various e-commerce platforms, including Amazon, Flipkart, and JioMart. The plaintiffs argued that this mark was deceptively similar to their registered trademark “Liv.52,” causing a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

The plaintiffs contended that the use of “Liv-333” by the defendants was an attempt to capitalize on the goodwill and reputation of “Liv.52.” They further alleged that consumers might falsely assume that “Liv-333” was associated with or endorsed by Himalaya due to the similarity in branding. Despite issuing a cease-and-desist notice on January 17, 2024, the plaintiffs claimed that the infringing product continued to be sold on online platforms. Additionally, the defendants failed to respond or provide any justification for using the name “Liv-333.”

On May 24, 2024, the Delhi High Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from selling “Liv-333” products. The defendants were required to file a written statement within the stipulated time. However, they failed to do so, leading to the closure of their right to submit a defense on January 23, 2025. The court also noted that despite clear orders, the defendants delayed disclosure of revenue earned from the infringing products. It observed:

"This Court observes that despite multiple opportunities to file an affidavit disclosing the revenue earned from the sale of products bearing the Liv-333 mark since the grant of the injunction on 24th May, 2024, as well as the pendency of a contempt application filed by the plaintiffs under Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC, the defendants belatedly filed the requisite details in February, 2025."

Based on the available evidence and in the absence of a written statement from the defendants, the court proceeded under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC and ruled in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. The plaintiffs successfully demonstrated that “Liv.52” is a well-established and reputed brand in the market. The court observed that the use of “Liv-333” was likely to mislead consumers due to phonetic and visual similarity. The defendants' failure to justify their use of the mark or file a written statement significantly weakened their position. It noted:

"Upon a bare perusal of the comparison of plaintiffs’ HIMALAYA logo and defendants’ RAJASTHAN logo, it is manifest that no claim of infringement can be carved out with respect to these two marks. Both the marks are entirely distinct—visually, phonetically, and structurally. Accordingly, the plaintiffs’ claim of similarity of green-orange colour scheme and the leaf device cannot be upheld."

"Upon comparison of the plaintiffs’ "Liv.52" mark with the defendants’ "Liv-333" mark, it is evident that the mark LIV forms the essential feature of the plaintiffs’ "Liv.52" mark and the defendants have clearly infringed upon the said mark by adding a numeral "333", which does not sufficiently distinguish their mark from that of the plaintiffs. 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, as the primary and most recognizable component remains identical."

"Upon careful consideration of the aforesaid discussion, it is noted that the plaintiffs’ claim of infringement is well-founded, as the defendants’ use of "Liv-333" is likely to deceive or cause confusion among members of the trade and public. The unauthorized use of the "LIV" element in a manner that does not materially differentiate the defendants’ mark from the plaintiffs' well-established "Liv.52" mark amounts to a violation of the plaintiffs’ statutory rights. This position is further fortified by the aforesaid decision in Himalaya Drug Company (Supra). Thus, it is manifest that the defendants’ mark ‘Liv-333’, with the word ‘Liv’ appearing in isolation followed by a numeral, is nearly identical/deceptively similar to plaintiffs’ registered and prior used trademark ‘Liv.52’."

Consequently, the court granted a permanent injunction, preventing Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited from using “Liv-333” or any deceptively similar mark. The court held;

"In view of the defendants’ continued and willful infringement of the plaintiffs’ "Liv.52" mark despite the subsistence of an ad-interim injunction, this Court finds 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 also directed the defendants to remove all infringing products from e-commerce platforms and other distribution channels. Additionally, the Court awarded costs of Rs 10,91,567 in favor of the plaintiffs. Furthermore, the plaintiffs were awarded damages amounting to Rs 20 Lacs, with defendant nos. 1 and 2 each liable to pay Rs 10 Lacs.

To view the original order, click on the link below:

https://indiankanoon.org/doc/54510839/