In a legal case brought forward by Himalaya Wellness Company, the plaintiff, seeking a permanent injunction, Justice C. Hari Shankar granted the request. The ruling prohibited the defendants from using marks like ‘LIV.55,’ ‘LIV 55,’ or ‘LIV.999,’ or any similar mark resembling the trade dress of the plaintiff’s ‘LIV.52’ Himalaya Wellness product.
This injunction applied not only to liver tonics but also encompassed other pharmaceutical preparations and related products. The court’s decision aimed to prevent any deceptive similarity between the defendant’s marks and the plaintiff’s product, safeguarding the integrity of Himalaya Wellness Company’s brand and trade identity. The ruling underscored the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and maintaining the distinctiveness of products in the pharmaceutical industry.
Background Case of Himalaya Wellness Products
The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had violated the registered trademark ‘LIV.52,’ owned by Plaintiff 2 since July 10, 1957. The plaintiffs argued that they had built a substantial reputation and goodwill around the ‘LIV.52’ Himalaya Wellness mark over the years. Notably, the sales of products bearing the ‘LIV.52’ mark amounted to Rs 209.02 crores in 2021–2022. The plaintiffs emphasized that due to continuous and widespread usage, the ‘LIV.52′ marks had become inseparably linked with their identity and had become recognized as distinctive indicators of their products.
The plaintiffs expressed their grievance against the defendants’ use of the mark ‘LIV.55 DS’ for a tonic similar to theirs. This Himalaya Wellness product was being promoted with a trade dress that closely resembled the plaintiff’s, creating confusion in the market. The plaintiffs argued that this action not only diluted the distinctiveness of their trademark but also led to potential consumer confusion, damaging their established market presence.
The core issue at hand was the deceptive similarity between the defendant’s ‘LIV.55 DS’ mark and the plaintiff’s well-established ‘LIV.52’ trademark. The plaintiffs contended that this similarity created a false impression in the minds of consumers, potentially leading them to believe that the defendant’s product was affiliated with or endorsed by the plaintiffs. This misperception, the plaintiffs argued, could tarnish the reputation they had diligently built over the years.
In summary, the plaintiffs sought legal recourse against the defendants, alleging trademark infringement and trade dress imitation. They aimed to safeguard their longstanding brand reputation, prevent consumer confusion, and maintain the integrity of their ‘LIV.52’ trademark, which they considered an integral part of their business identity.
In the detailed analysis of the case, Himalaya Wellness Products
The Court unequivocally pointed out the evident similarities between the trade dresses of the plaintiffs and the defendants. A cursory examination revealed that the defendants had blatantly replicated the plaintiff’s trade dress, down to specific details such as the thin orange border at the top, a central white strip, and the green lower half of the bottle. Even the lettering, rendered in white with similar fonts, bore a striking resemblance. The Court observed that the marks ‘LIV 52’ and ‘LIV 55’ Himalaya Wellness were undeniably deceptively similar.
Crucially, the Court noted that an average consumer, even one with imperfect judgment, could easily be confused between ‘LIV.55’ and ‘LIV.52,’ especially given that both marks were affixed on identical-looking bottles and packs, further perpetuating the likelihood of confusion. The Court dismissed the argument that the inclusion of the company’s name on the defendant’s products would mitigate this confusion. The stark similarity in trade dresses far outweighed any mitigating effect the company’s name might have had.
Moreover, the Court emphasized that in situations where there was compelling evidence that the defendant had purposefully imitated the plaintiff, the focus should be on the similarities rather than the dissimilarities between the products. In this instance, the defendants had unambiguously adopted a trade dress identical to the plaintiff’s ‘LIV.52,’ even extending it to ‘LIV.55’ and ‘LIV.55 DS” Himalaya Wellness products.
The Court further stressed that the defendant’s introduction of ‘LIV.999’ did not justify their use of the ‘LIV’ combination with numbers in a manner identical to how the plaintiffs had used it for liver tonics. A consumer with average intelligence and imperfect memory could easily associate ‘LIV.999’ with ‘LIV.52,’ Himalaya Wellness further deepening the confusion.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that to the casual observer, the products suggested they were different strengths of the same manufacturer, a common practice in the pharmaceutical industry. Typically, products with varying strengths had dissimilar packaging to prevent confusion. However, in this case, the deliberate replication of the trade dress obliterated any chance of differentiation, leading to potential confusion among consumers.
Must Read:-
The Court’s analysis underlined the deliberate and deceptive nature of the defendant’s actions, emphasizing the need to protect against such blatant trademark infringement and consumer confusion within the pharmaceutical market.In its ruling, the Court drew upon the precedent set by the case Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd., 1996 SCC Online Del 464, affirming that the plaintiffs, in this instance, were unequivocally entitled to a permanent injunction.
The injunction was sought concerning the marks ‘LIV.55’ and ‘LIV.99’, encompassing both the specific marks and the associated trade dress used by Defendant 1. The Court emphasized that the sale or non-sale of the defendant’s products did not significantly impact the infringement issue. If the defendant’s mark bore deceptive similarity to that of the plaintiff, it constituted a likelihood of confusion and infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The Court reinforced its decision by referencing previous cases such as Sumeet Research and Holdings Pvt. Ltd. v. Gautam Tank, 2007 SCC Online Del 1685. These cases established that when there was a congruence of similarity or identity of products sold through the same outlets, infringement was evident. In this context, the Court highlighted the striking resemblance between the defendants’ and plaintiffs’ products, reinforcing the infringement claim.
Must Read:-
One Reply to “Delhi High Court favors Himalaya Wellness, grants permanent LIV.52 injunction”