Delhi High Court Protects 'HIMALAYA' Trademark, Temporarily Restrains Use Of Deceptively Similar Mark

The Delhi High Court has temporarily restrained an individual from using the mark “HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE” or any deceptively similar mark, protecting Himalaya Wellness Company's “HIMALAYA” trademark for pharmaceutical and allied products.

A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, in an order dated March 30, 2026, held that Himalaya Wellness Company had made out a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, observing that the defendant had adopted deceptively similar marks and trade dress “with a view to encash the reputation of the Plaintiffs” and misrepresent to the public that its products emanate from them or are associated with them.

“I am of the view that Plaintiffs have made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiffs and they are likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim injunction, as prayed for, is not granted.,” the Court said.

The plaintiffs, engaged in manufacturing ayurvedic products since 1930, approached the Court after discovering that the individual, later identified as Ashraful Islam, had applied for registration of the mark “Himalaya The Nutra Healthcare” in respect of pharmaceutical products and was operating a website using a deceptively similar domain name.

According to Himalaya, Islam had adopted an identical font style, green colour scheme and overall trade dress and was selling products in packaging closely imitating that of their well-known LIV.52 syrup, thereby creating a likelihood of confusion among consumers.

They also pointed out that the defendant's website stated, “HIMALAYA NUTRA HEALTHCARE IS A DIVISION OF HIMALAYA WELLNESS COMPANY,” which, according to them, was calculated to misrepresent an association with the plaintiffs.

The plaintiffs submitted that they are the registered proprietors of the “HIMALAYA” mark and its formative variants, holding around 150 trademark registrations in India, and that their logo and packaging are protected under the Copyright Act.

Taking note of the rival marks and products, the Court observed that the goods are identical and the trade channels and consumer base are common, making confusion among the public and potential customers highly likely.

“Plaintiffs have garnered formidable reputation and goodwill by extenstive and continuous use of HIMALAYA trademarks and assocated trade dress. It is prima facie evident that Defendant has adopted deceptively similar marks and trade dress with a view to encash the reputation of the Plaintiffs and misrepresent to the public that its products emanate from the Plaintiffs or have some assocation with them. This amounts to passing off as the action of the Defendant is causing irreparable harm and injury to the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs." the Court observed.

Accordingly, the court restrained the individual and all those acting on his behalf from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale or advertising products using the impugned marks or any deceptively similar variants, as well as the impugned domain name.

The court also restrained the individual from using any trade dress, packaging, layout, get-up, or artistic features that are deceptively similar to those of the plaintiffs and amount to infringement of copyright or passing off.