Summary
The Delhi High Court examined the claim of trademark infringement and passing off by Himalaya Wellness against Greenland Trading. The Plaintiffs established long-standing usage and registration of the HIMALAYA mark, which the Court held to be well-known and distinctive. The Defendant’s use of similar marks for identical ayurvedic products was found to cause confusion and deceive consumers. The Court noted the high risk of irreparable harm to the Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation. An interim injunction was granted, restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks pending final adjudication.
Facts / Background
The Plaintiffs, Himalaya Wellness Company, are a long-standing manufacturer and distributor of ayurvedic, pharmaceutical, wellness and personal care products, since the 1930s. They claimed extensive and continuous use of the trademark HIMALAYA and related marks, logos and trade dress, across India and other countries. The HIMALAYA-branded products are sold through retail stores, chemists, online platforms, and Himalaya-exclusive stores. The Plaintiffs also own several registrations for the HIMALAYA trademarks in Classes 3 and 5, among others.
In June 2025, the Plaintiffs discovered that the Defendant, Greenland Trading Company, was selling ayurvedic and wellness products using the marks ‘HIMALAYA’, ‘HIMALAYA EVEREST’, ‘EVEREST’, and other deceptively similar variants. Plaintiffs engaged an investigator, who found invoices bearing the name “GREENELAND HIMALAYA MEHASHSHRINGI” and confirmed that the Defendant’s proprietor was using ‘HIMALAYA’ as a trade name for her ayurvedic business. She operated an informal business from her home, procuring and repackaging third-party products for online sales.
Plaintiffs submitted that the HIMALAYA mark had gained nationwide reputation and secondary meaning, and the Defendant’s adoption of an identical mark was intended to ride on this goodwill and deceive consumers. The Plaintiffs also alleged that the Defendant’s products were identical or similar and that the marks adopted were visually, phonetically, and structurally similar, causing confusion, deception, and dilution of their well-known HIMALAYA trademark.
Issues Analyzed by the Court
-
- Whether the Plaintiffs made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off based on statutory and common-law rights over the HIMALAYA marks.
- Whether the Defendant’s use of marks such as ‘HIMALAYA’, ‘HIMALAYA EVEREST’, or similar variants constituted deceptive similarity likely to confuse the public.
- Whether interim injunction should be granted restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks pending disposal of the suit.
Analysis by the Court
The Court found overwhelming material establishing the Plaintiffs’ long-standing use and registration of the HIMALAYA marks, which are well-recognized across India. The Court noted that the marks are distinctive and have acquired secondary meaning, exclusively signifying the Plaintiffs’ goods.
The Defendant’s marks, ‘HIMALAYA’, ‘HIMALAYA EVEREST’, and similar variants, were found to be visually, phonetically, structurally, and deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs’ marks. This similarity would likely mislead an ordinary consumer into believing the goods originated from the Plaintiffs.
The Defendant’s conduct appeared deliberate, particularly because:
-
- Products were repackaged and sold under the impugned marks.
- The Defendant was aware of the Plaintiffs’ brand yet adopted nearly identical marks for identical goods.
- Online search results displayed the Plaintiffs’ products alongside or intermixed with the Defendant’s listings, reinforcing confusion.
The Court emphasized the risk of irreparable harm through consumer deception, dilution of goodwill, and injury to the Plaintiffs’ reputation. It noted that the potential for confusion was especially high, as the goods (ayurvedic medicines, supplements, cosmetics) were identical.
The Court stated that, “The balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs, as continued use of one of the Impugned Marks, ‘HIMALAYA’, would erode the distinctiveness of the Subject Marks and dilute the Plaintiffs’ goodwill built over decades. The Plaintiffs are likely to suffer irreparable injury, particularly given that the competing products relate to health and wellness, where consumer confusion may have serious consequences and where loss of reputation cannot be compensated monetarily.”
Accordingly, the Court granted the Interim Injunction, restraining Defendant from using the marks ‘HIMALAYA’, ‘HIMALAYA EVEREST’, ‘EVEREST’, and any deceptively similar marks for identical or similar goods.
Citation: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Greenland Trading Company, CS(COMM) 1266/2025, 27 November 2025, Delhi High Court. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/180233871/.
Authored by Ms. Ashwini Arun.