Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr.

Recently, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, while dismissing an appeal, upheld its single judge order to restrain Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Pvt. Ltd. (“Appellant”) from manufacturing and marketing tablets under the mark LIV- 333, owing to its deceptive similarity to the LIV.52 mark registered in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Himalaya Wellness Company (“Respondents”).

The Respondents had initiated a civil suit against the Appellant alleging, inter alia, trademark infringement, pursuant to which an ad interim injunction was granted in May 2024 and the court issued an ex-parte order restraining the Appellant from using the mark LIV-333. Owing to the Appellant’s failure to file its written submissions within the stipulated time, the single judge in February 2025, granted permanent injunction against the Appellant and imposed costs to the tune of Rs. 10.9 lakhs and damages of Rs 20 lakhs on the Appellant for continued infringement, despite an injunction.

Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the prefix ‘LIV’, in ‘LIV.52’ was merely an abbreviation for ‘liver’ and that the term ‘LIV’ is publici juris and no one can claim exclusivity over it. He also submitted that there is no visual similarity between the marks ‘LIV.52’ and ‘LIV-333’. On the other hand, the Respondent’s counsel stated that there is no error in the judgment and the Appellant could not adopt the mark ‘LIV-333’ as the Respondent’s ‘LIV.52’ was a household mark and had been in the market since 1930.

Rejecting the contentions of the Appellant regarding the LIV.52 mark being generic, the court highlighted that the mark LIV.52 is coined and invented, and that its adoption is unique to the Respondents. Further, the court stated that the term LIV forms the essential and dominant part of the mark and mere addition of the numeral ‘333’ was deemed insufficient to render the rival marks dissimilar. The court upheld the initial interest confusion test and emphasised that even a minimal degree of confusion in case of pharmaceutical goods can have serious consequences on public health. Lastly, the court opined that if the rival marks are deceptively similar, a case of infringement is made out. “Added features”, such as the visual dissimilarity between the marks, difference in packaging, price and the like, have no relevance in a claim of infringement.

Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited Vs. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr. [RFA(OS)(COMM) 18/2025], pronounced on July 4, 2025 Read the judgement copy here.