Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd and Himalaya Wellness Company are the registered proprietors of the trademark Liv 52, used for liver related medicinal preparations since the mid nineteen fifties. They instituted a commercial suit alleging that Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited was using the mark Liv 333 for similar medicinal products, resulting in infringement and passing off.<\/p>\n
The Single Judge of the Delhi High Court decreed the suit in February two thousand twenty five under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure due to failure to file a written statement. The Judge granted a permanent injunction restraining use of Liv 333, awarded damages of Rupees twenty lakhs, and imposed costs of Rupees ten lakh ninety one thousand five hundred sixty seven.<\/p>\n
Aggrieved by this decree, the defendants filed an appeal before the Division Bench under Section 13A of the Commercial Courts Act read with Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure.<\/p>\n
1. Whether use of the mark Liv 333 infringes the registered trademark Liv 52.
\n2. Whether the proprietor of Liv 52 can claim protection over the word Liv.
\n3. How the principles of dominant feature and anti dissection apply to composite trademarks.
\n4. Whether the damages and costs awarded by the Single Judge were justified.<\/p>\n
The appellant argued that Liv is a common abbreviation for liver and is widely used in pharmaceutical marks. According to the appellant, Liv is descriptive and publici juris and cannot be monopolised. It was contended that Liv 333 and Liv 52 are visually and phonetically different and that Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act does not permit exclusivity over parts of a composite mark. The appellant also challenged the decree of damages and costs.<\/p>\n
The respondents argued that Liv is the essential and dominant feature of Liv 52 and that use of Liv with a number creates deceptive similarity. They relied on earlier Division Bench precedent holding that use of Liv even in isolation infringes Liv 52. On damages, the respondents pointed out that the appellant continued selling the infringing product even after an interim injunction and earned revenue during that period.<\/p>\n
The court stated that the Single Judge had not prohibited all use of the word Liv. According to the court, the injunction was limited to Liv 333 and other deceptively similar marks. As per the Court, the apprehension that Liv would become unusable for all traders was misplaced.<\/p>\n
The court observed that the marks structured as Liv followed only by a number, such as Liv 25 or Liv 100, would infringe Liv 52. It said that such marks do not contain any distinguishing element and are likely to cause confusion, especially in the context of medicinal products.<\/p>\n
The court held that the issue was squarely covered by the earlier Division Bench judgment in Himalaya v SBL. It stated that this judgment conclusively held Liv to be the essential feature of Liv 52 and that its unauthorised use amounts to infringement.<\/p>\n
The court rejected reliance on an earlier interim order that had taken a different view. It said that interim observations cannot override findings in a final judgment delivered after full adjudication.<\/p>\n
The court explained that Section 17 does not prevent identification of a dominant feature of a composite mark. According to the court, trademarks must be viewed as a whole, but it is permissible to identify the element that creates the strongest commercial impression. The court observed that the anti dissection principle and the dominant feature doctrine operate together.<\/p>\n
On damages, the court noted that the appellant continued selling products bearing Liv 333 even after an interim injunction was granted. It to sales figures showing revenue earned after the injunction. According to the court, such conduct justified the award of compensatory and punitive damages. While the court stayed the operation of the damages and costs portion of the decree, it did so only subject to deposit of the entire damages amount with the registry.<\/p>\n
The court upheld the finding that Liv 333 infringes the registered trademark Liv 52. It confirmed that Liv is the dominant feature of the registered mark and that its use with a numeral causes deceptive similarity. The Court dismissed the appeal on infringement, and Issued the notice only on the issue of damages and costs, subject to deposit of the damages amount.<\/p>\n
Rajasthan Aushdhalaya Private Limited vs Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd and Another, RFA OS COMM 18 of 2025, decided on 04 July 2025.<\/p>\n