Calcutta High Court Halts ‘Liv.72’ Over Striking Similarity With Himalaya’s ‘Liv.52’

Calcutta High Court Halts ‘Liv.72’ Over Striking Similarity With Himalaya’s ‘Liv.52’

Introduction

The Calcutta High Court has granted interim protection to Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., restraining the use of the mark “Liv.72” for a health product on the ground that it is deceptively similar to Himalaya’s iconic liver health formulation “Liv.52.” The Court held that continued sale of the rival product was likely to cause consumer confusion and deception.

Factual Background

Himalaya traced its legacy to 1930, stating that its flagship liver health product “Liv.52” was adopted by its predecessor as early as 1955. The mark enjoys multiple trademark registrations, including a word mark registered in 1957, with uninterrupted and extensive use over several decades.

In October 2025, Himalaya discovered that Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. was marketing a competing health product under the mark “Liv.72.” Himalaya contended that the rival mark, packaging, and overall trade dress closely resembled its own, leading to infringement, passing off, and copyright violation.

Procedural Background

Himalaya instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Calcutta High Court seeking interim and final reliefs. The matter was heard by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, who passed the interim order temporarily restraining the defendants from using the impugned mark and packaging.

Issues

1. Whether “Liv.72” was deceptively similar to the well-known mark “Liv.52.”

2. Whether the defendants’ packaging and trade dress infringed Himalaya’s rights.

3. Whether Himalaya had established a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and likelihood of irreparable harm.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: Himalaya argued that “Liv.52” is a household name with decades of goodwill and reputation. It contended that the adoption of “Liv.72”, along with a similar colour scheme and overall get-up, was a deliberate attempt to ride on its goodwill. Himalaya also pointed out that the defendants’ application for trademark registration was filed on a “proposed to be used” basis and had already been rejected.

Defendants:The defendants continued to market the product despite rejection of the trademark application. Their conduct, according to Himalaya, demonstrated lack of bona fides and bad faith adoption.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur undertook a comparative assessment of the rival marks and packaging. The Court found that “Liv.72” bore striking visual and phonetic similarity to “Liv.52.” It further noted that the defendants had adopted a green, white and orange colour combination and an overall trade dress closely resembling Himalaya’s well-known packaging.

The Court observed that the similarities were not accidental but appeared calculated to cause confusion and deception among consumers, particularly in the context of health products. It also took adverse note of the fact that the defendants continued to sell the product even after their trademark application was rejected, terming this conduct as prima facie indicative of bad faith.

Given Himalaya’s long-standing use and reputation, the Court held that a strong prima facie case was made out and that failure to grant interim relief would result in irreparable harm.

Decision

The Calcutta High Court granted interim injunction restraining Shimla Drugs Health Care Pvt. Ltd. and its associate from using the “Liv.72” mark and the impugned packaging. The matter was heard on January 7, 2026.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Suhrita Majumdar, Mr. P. Sinha, Mr. Dipro Dawn, Ms. Sayani De and Ms. Mallika Bothra, Advocates.