Court restrains Kbir Wellness from using deceptively similar 'Liv-82 DS' mark to Himalaya's 'Liv.52', protecting brand integrity and consumer trust.
In a significant move to protect intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., prohibiting Kbir Wellness Private Limited from using the allegedly infringing trademark 'Liv-82 DS'. The ruling, delivered by Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, underscores the court's commitment to safeguarding established trademarks against deceptive and confusing imitations.
Himalaya Global Holdings, known for its flagship herbal product 'Liv.52', sought legal intervention after discovering that Kbir Wellness was marketing liver care products under the similar-sounding name 'Liv-82 DS'. The court found that the latter's trade dress, color scheme, and numerical usage were likely to cause confusion among consumers, who might mistake it for the well-established 'Liv.52'.
The court's decision was based on the findings that Himalaya had established a strong prima facie case of trademark infringement. The balance of convenience was found to be in favor of Himalaya, which has been using the 'Liv.52' mark since 1955, creating significant goodwill and reputation over the years. The court highlighted that the defendants' adoption of a similar mark was dishonest and in bad faith, aimed at misleading consumers.
Justice Gedela's order restrains Kbir Wellness and its associates from manufacturing, selling, or marketing any products under the infringing 'Liv-82 DS' mark. The court also mandated the defendants to disclose the quantity and value of the infringing goods, along with earnings from sales, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark protection laws.
This ruling is a reminder of the rigorous standards Indian courts apply to protect established trademarks and deter entities from adopting deceptive practices. It also emphasizes the judiciary's role in maintaining fair competition and protecting consumer interests.
Bottom line:-
Trademark - Grant of ex-parte ad-interim injunction to protect trademark rights of plaintiffs against defendants' use of deceptively similar trademark and trade dress.
Statutory Provision(s):
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Sections 2(1)(zg), 11(1); Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 CPC; Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015; Section 151 of CPC.
