INTRODUCTION
In the case of ‘Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and Anr v/s Shimla Drugs Health Care Private C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 257/2025.’The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court restrained Shimla Drugs from selling its Liv. 72, aliver tonic, ruling that it was deceptively similar to Himalaya’s famous Liv. 52, which is a registered trademark. The court found that the name and the green and white packaging were so similar that they would likely to cause confusion. This suit alleges infringement of trademark, trade dress, copyright and passing off. The matter was heard by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur and the order was passed on the 23rd of December 2025.
CASE BACKGROUND AND KEY FACTS
a) Himalaya Global Holdings is a well-known multinational company specializing in health and personal care products including herbal and Ayurvedic medicines. It has been carrying on business since 1930. It is a manufacturer and distributor of a product called Liv.52, which was adopted by the predecessor in interest in the year 1955.
b) It holds a registered word mark (Trademark Application no. 180564) for Liv.52 under Class 5, which was granted in the year 1957 and is now renewed till 2036.
c) The company has been using the mark continuously and uninterruptedly for more than 70 years and has gained an immense reputation and goodwill in the market.
d) The petitioner’s products marketed under the trademark Liv.52 are distinguished by unique packaging and have generated huge sales along with considerable expenditure on advertising.
e) Around October 2025, the Himalaya company observed that the impugned product Liv.72 was also being sold in the market by Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt Company and a comparison clearly shows that the impugned product and its packaging are deceptively similar to the petitioner’s product in overall visual appearance.
f) They have adopted a mark that is deceptively similar to the mark used by the Himalaya company, featuring the same colour combination of green, white and orange.
g) The use of the mark Liv.72 appears as intended to create confusion and deception in the market, constituting misrepresentation and amounting to infringement.
h) The trademark application for the word mark Liv.72 (Application No. 5098280 under Class 5) was refused on the relative grounds of refusal under Section 11 of the Trademark Act, 1999 due to the similarity to earlier marks for identical or related goods or services and there is a likelihood of confusion. Despite it, they have continued to freely sell their products in the market. The application for registration of the mark was filed on a proposed to be used basis, providing prima facie evidence of bad faith on the part of the respondent.
i) The overwhelming similarities of both the products, the continued selling of the impugned product ‘Liv. 72’ by Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Company and the combination of above-mentioned factors in the impugned product amount to the infringement.
ISSUES
a) Whether the Respondent’s mark LIV. 72 is phonetically, visually and structurally deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered and well-known trademark LIV. 52.
b) Whether the Respondent has committed trademark infringement and passing off by adopting a trade dress, including a green, white and orange color scheme, that is identical to the Plaintiff’s established packaging.
c) Whether the Respondent adopted the impugned mark in bad faith with the intention of exploiting and performing trade upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff’s brand.
d) Whether the petitioners have established a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable injury to warrant the grant of an interim injunction.
ARGUMENTS BY DEFENDENT
a) The respondent contended that the word ‘LIV’ is generic and commonly used in the trade, since the medicines produced and marketed by both parties are intended for liver treatment.
b) They argued that the product is not similar phonetically and is not descriptively similar to Liv. 52 mark which is used by the Himalaya Company, and it is not likely to cause confusion or deception in the market.
c) They stated that the consumers are sophisticated and observant who exercise a high degree of care and are fully capable of perceiving the distinct visual and phonetic differences between the products while buying.
COURT’S ANALYSIS AND DECISION
The Hon’ble court while keeping in mind the nature of the product and the class of goods involved, the case was decided in favor of the Himalaya Company to protect their mark ‘Liv 52’ from infringement as there was deceptive similarity in the packaging of the product. Also, after considering the facts, it was concluded that the impugned mark was used in a bad faith to create deception in the market.
The Hon’ble Calcutta High Court passed an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., directing Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. to immediately stop using the mark ‘Liv.72’ for any product and discontinue to sell, promote, advertise or distribute products under the impugned mark and use packaging or product designs that are similar to Himalaya’s trademark. These restrictions will remain in force until the case is finally decided and the Court also fixed the next date of hearing for 7th January 2026 for further consideration of the matter.
IMPLICATIONS
a) Strong Trademark Protection: The order shows that courts will strictly protect registered and well-known trademarks, especially in industries where brand recognition matters.
b) Consumer Safety and Clarity: The judgment emphasizes preventing consumer confusion, ensuring that buyers are not misled by similar names or packaging.
c) Fair Competition: The court supports healthy competition but makes it clear that competing businesses must follow the law and avoid copying established brands.
d) Responsible Business Conduct: The companies must avoid taking unfair advantage of the goodwill of well-known brands.
CONCLUSION
This case shows how important it is to protect well-known trademarks and stop others from misusing them. By granting a temporary injunction in favor of Himalaya, the hon’ble Court made it clear that the reputation a brand builds over many years deserves strong legal protection. The ruling also establishes that businesses must ensure fair competition and use original branding that is clearly different from others. It focuses on protecting a brand’s identity and preventing confusion among consumers, particularly in the health industry where similar product names can easily mislead people and harm established companies. Therefore, it highlights the need for careful enforcement of trademark rights.
REFERENCES
a) Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr v. Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. (COMM.IPD‑TM 257/2025)
b) The Trade Marks Act, 1999
d) Read The Order: https://jpassociates.co.in/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/himalayaglobalholdingsltdandanrvsshimladrugshealthcareprivateon23december2025-317175.pdf
Author Details: Ms. Kamya Bhadouria, 4th year Law Student, University Institute of Legal Studies, Chandigarh University
Read Our Similar Article: MADHYA PRADESH’S FIRST JOHN DOE (ASHOK KUMAR) ORDER – J.P. Associates