{"id":129227,"date":"2025-05-08T09:00:31","date_gmt":"2025-05-08T03:30:31","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/?p=129227"},"modified":"2025-05-07T22:44:34","modified_gmt":"2025-05-07T17:14:34","slug":"pilex-trademark-infringement-relief-himalaya","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/pilex-trademark-infringement-relief-himalaya\/","title":{"rendered":"Decades of Himalaya’s Goodwill Shield PILEX Trademark from Deceptive Use"},"content":{"rendered":"

Court<\/strong>: High Court at Calcutta, Original Side (Intellectual Property Rights Division)
\nCoram:<\/strong> Hon\u2019ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur
\nDate of Decision<\/strong>: 17 April 2025<\/p>\n

In the case of Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd and Anr vs Kent Pharmaceuticals and Ors, decided by the Calcutta High Court on 17 April 2025 by Hon\u2019ble Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur, the plaintiffs brought a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. Plaintiff No. 1, Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd, and Plaintiff No. 2, Himalaya Wellness Company (formerly Himalaya Drug Company), are part of a globally recognized herbal health and personal care organization. The “PILEX” trademark was adopted in 1937 and registered in 1946 under Class 5 for medicinal preparations. Plaintiff No. 2 continues to manufacture and sell products under the trademark owned by Plaintiff No. 1, with both entities closely connected through common ownership and understanding.<\/p>\n

The plaintiffs discovered in February 2025 that the defendants were selling medicinal products under the marks “Pilex”, “Plax”, or “Pilax” on a popular e-commerce website. These marks were alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs\u2019 registered trademark “PILEX”. The plaintiffs contended that such use amounted to both infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off, considering the extensive goodwill, continuous use, and promotional investments associated with the trademark. The defendants, upon being served, appeared and fairly submitted that they no longer intended to use the impugned marks and provided an unconditional undertaking to that effect. It was also noted that Defendant No. 5 had passed away.<\/p>\n

The Court considered the facts, including the plaintiffs\u2019 long-standing use, reputation, and trademark registration, and took note of the defendants\u2019 submission. In view of the unconditional undertaking and the absence of any contest, the Court disposed of the suit and the connected interlocutory application. It directed Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 to pay consolidated costs of \u20b92,00,000 to the plaintiffs within two weeks. A decree was passed granting the plaintiffs relief for infringement and passing off. The plaintiffs were also granted liberty to mention the matter in case of non-compliance with the order. The case underscores the importance of trademark protection and judicial recognition of prior use and goodwill, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector where deceptive similarity can lead to serious public harm.<\/p>\n

Citation<\/strong>: Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd And Anr vs Kent Pharmaceuticals And Ors, In the Calcutta High Court, IA NO. GA-COM\/1\/2025, on 17th April 2025. Available at: https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/37234406\/<\/a><\/p>\n

Article Author: T K Tushar<\/p>\n

Article and Accessibility Review: Benita Alphonsa Basil<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The Calcutta High Court\u2019s Intellectual Property Rights Division upheld Himalaya\u2019s trademark \u201cPILEX\u201d, citing decades of goodwill and market presence. With the defendants ceasing use and offering an unconditional undertaking, the Court ordered relief and reinforced the legal significance of brand protection in pharmaceuticals.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":129231,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"iawp_total_views":69,"footnotes":""},"categories":[6,5495,11],"tags":[6716,6242,6287,6714,6715],"class_list":["post-129227","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-intellectual-property","category-case-reviews","category-trademarks","tag-calcutta-high-court-judgment","tag-himalaya-global-holdings","tag-himalaya-wellness","tag-pilex-trademark","tag-trademark-infringement-india"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129227","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=129227"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129227\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":129235,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/129227\/revisions\/129235"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/129231"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=129227"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=129227"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.bananaip.com\/intellepedia\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=129227"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}