Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Protecting ‘HIMALAYA’ Mark Against Deceptively Similar Pharma Branding
Delhi High Court Grants Ex Parte Injunction Protecting ‘HIMALAYA’ Mark Against Deceptively Similar Pharma Branding
Introduction
The Delhi High Court, through Justice Jyoti Singh, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Himalaya Wellness Company, restraining the defendant from using the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” or any deceptively similar mark in relation to pharmaceutical and allied products. The Court held that Himalaya had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement, passing off, and trade dress imitation, noting that the defendant’s conduct appeared designed to ride upon the longstanding goodwill attached to the well-known “HIMALAYA” brand.
Factual Background
Himalaya Wellness Company, a well-established manufacturer of ayurvedic and pharmaceutical products since 1930, approached the Court upon discovering that an individual, later identified as Ashraful Islam, had applied for registration of the mark “Himalaya The Nutra Healthcare” in respect of pharmaceutical goods. The plaintiffs further discovered that the defendant was operating a website under a deceptively similar domain name and marketing pharmaceutical products through packaging that closely resembled the plaintiffs’ established branding.
According to the plaintiffs, the defendant had copied the identical green colour palette, font style, and overall trade dress associated with Himalaya’s well-known medicinal products, particularly its LIV.52 syrup packaging. It was also brought to the Court’s notice that the defendant’s website falsely represented that “HIMALAYA NUTRA HEALTHCARE IS A DIVISION OF HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY,” thereby creating a false commercial association and increasing the likelihood of consumer deception.
Procedural Background
The plaintiffs instituted a commercial trademark and passing off action before the Delhi High Court seeking urgent interim relief. They relied upon their extensive trademark portfolio, consisting of approximately 150 registrations in India for the HIMALAYA mark and its variants, as well as copyright protection over their logos, packaging, and artistic features.
Upon a prima facie comparison of the rival marks, products, and packaging, the Court proceeded to examine whether interim protection was warranted pending service and further pleadings.
Issues
1. Whether the defendant’s use of “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” amounted to prima facie trademark infringement and passing off.
2. Whether the imitation of the plaintiffs’ packaging, green trade dress, and font style constituted actionable misrepresentation and copyright infringement.
3. Whether the plaintiffs had made out a case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction.
Contentions of Parties
The plaintiffs contended that they are the prior adopters and registered proprietors of the HIMALAYA mark, enjoying immense goodwill and recognition in the pharmaceutical, wellness, and ayurvedic products segment. They argued that the defendant had adopted an identical dominant word mark, combined with near-identical trade dress and packaging elements, with the clear intention of misleading consumers into believing that the defendant’s products were associated with or originated from Himalaya Wellness Company.
It was further submitted that the false statement on the defendant’s website describing itself as a division of Himalaya Wellness was a deliberate act of deception, aggravating the infringement and passing off.
The defendant had not yet entered appearance at the interim stage.
Reasoning and Analysis
The Court undertook a prima facie comparison of the rival marks and found that the defendant had appropriated the essential and dominant feature of the plaintiffs’ mark, namely “HIMALAYA.” Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the goods in question were identical, the trade channels were common, and the relevant consumer base substantially overlapped, thereby making confusion and deception highly probable.
The Court also gave significant weight to the imitation of the plaintiffs’ packaging style, font, green colour scheme, and overall get-up. It held that such close imitation of trade dress, particularly in the pharmaceutical field where consumer confusion can have serious consequences, strongly supported a finding of prima facie infringement and passing off.
The Bench further observed that the defendant’s website representation suggesting that it was a division of Himalaya Wellness was clearly calculated to falsely indicate source, sponsorship, or affiliation. Such conduct, in the Court’s view, was a deliberate attempt to encash the plaintiffs’ goodwill and amounted to classic passing off.
Having found that the plaintiffs had demonstrated a strong prima facie case, the Court held that the balance of convenience overwhelmingly favoured the plaintiffs and that irreparable injury would ensue if the defendant was not immediately restrained.
Decision
The Delhi High Court restrained the defendant, his agents, and all persons acting on his behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in pharmaceutical and allied goods under the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” or any other deceptively similar mark. The defendant was also restrained from using the impugned domain name and from adopting any packaging, layout, artistic work, or trade dress deceptively similar to that of Himalaya Wellness Company.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Advocates Rahul Beruar, Nidhi Jain and Aayushi Tiwari.
