• Factual Background:
  • Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and its subsidiary, leading herbal health product manufacturers, filed a suit against Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited for trademark infringement.
  • The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants' marks "Liv-333" and its associated logo were deceptively similar to their registered trademarks "Liv.52" and "Himalaya."
  • The plaintiffs' "Liv.52" brand has been in use since 1955 and enjoys significant goodwill in the market.
  • Despite a cease-and-desist notice, the defendants continued using the allegedly infringing marks.
• Procedural Background:
  • The suit was filed seeking a permanent injunction and other reliefs.
  • The court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks.
  • The defendants failed to file a written statement within the prescribed period, leading to the closure of their right to do so.
  • The plaintiffs sought judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC due to the defendants’ failure to defend the suit.
• Provisions of Law Referred and Their Context:
  • Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC was invoked to pronounce judgment in the absence of a written statement.
  • Sections of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, concerning trademark infringement and passing off were relied upon to establish the plaintiffs’ exclusive rights over "Liv.52."
  • The court also considered Order XXXIX Rule 2A CPC regarding violation of its injunction order.
• Judgments Referred with Citation and Context:
  • The court relied on Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Limited, 2012 SCC OnLine Del 5701, which restrained another entity from using "LIV" in a similar context, confirming that even a slight modification does not prevent infringement.
  • Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73 was cited, emphasizing stricter protection for pharmaceutical trademarks due to public health concerns.
  • The decision in Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. Mocha Blu Coffee Shop, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 12219 was referred to support decreeing cases where defendants fail to file a written statement.

Reasoning of Court:
The court found that "LIV" is the dominant part of the plaintiffs' mark, and the addition of "333" by the defendants did not sufficiently differentiate it. Given the strong consumer association with "Liv.52," the similarity was likely to cause confusion. The court noted that continued use of the infringing mark even after the injunction order demonstrated willful disobedience. It observed that trademark laws must be strictly enforced in cases of medicinal products to prevent confusion that could lead to adverse health consequences.

Case Title: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. Vs Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Ltd.
Date of Order: 25.02.2025 
Case Number: CS(COMM) 433/2024
Neutral Citation:2025:DHC:1670
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Mini Pushkarna

Decision:
The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendants were permanently restrained from using "Liv-333" or any other mark deceptively similar to "Liv.52." The court awarded ₹10,91,567 as costs and ₹20 lakhs in damages, citing the need for deterrence. The decree was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC due to the defendants’ failure to file a defense.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: ajayamitabhsuman@gmail.com, Ph no: 9990389539