Himalaya Global Holdings Secures Relief Against Shimla Drugs for Deceptively Similar Product Packaging
In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. against Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited, marking a victory in a contentious trademark infringement case. The judgment, delivered by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, addresses allegations of intellectual property rights violations concerning trademark, trade dress, copyright, and passing off.
Himalaya Global Holdings, a long-established player in the pharmaceutical industry, claimed that their trademark "Liv.52," which has been in use since 1955, was being infringed upon by Shimla Drugs through the marketing of a product labeled "Liv.72." The court found that the respondents' mark "Liv.72" bore a striking resemblance to the petitioners' "Liv.52" in terms of visual appearance, color scheme, and packaging, constituting a prima facie case of infringement and misrepresentation.
The court noted the substantial goodwill and reputation associated with Himalaya's "Liv.52," a product that enjoys valid and subsisting trademark registrations. Despite the service of legal notice, Shimla Drugs did not appear to defend its position, and evidence presented indicated that the respondents had attempted to register the "Liv.72" mark but were unsuccessful.
Justice Kapur observed that the similarities in the product's overall visual presentation were likely to cause confusion and deception in the market. The judgment emphasized that the respondents' actions appeared to be in bad faith, given their continued sale of the impugned product despite the rejection of their trademark application.
In granting the interim injunction, the court directed Shimla Drugs to cease using the "Liv.72" mark and packaging, providing relief to Himalaya Global Holdings. The court also allowed the respondents the liberty to apply for vacating, varying, or modifying the order, with the matter scheduled for further hearing on January 7, 2026.
The decision underscores the importance of protecting established trademarks and the legal recourse available to companies facing infringement. This ruling serves as a reminder of the judiciary's role in upholding intellectual property rights, ensuring fair competition, and safeguarding consumer interests.
Bottom Line:
Intellectual Property Rights - Infringement of trademark, trade dress, copyright, and passing off - Adoption of deceptively similar mark and packaging calculated to cause confusion and deception in the market held to be prima facie infringement.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 29, 30
