Delhi High Court Lifts Injunction On 'Shatam Jeeva' Mark, Says No Prima Facie Infringement of 'Jiva' Trademark

The Delhi High Court has recently set aside an interim injunction restraining the use of “SHATAM JEEVA” for a wellness retreat, holding that it does not, prima facie, infringe or pass off on the “JIVA” trademark used by Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd and its group entities.

The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla said the two marks, “JIVA” and “SHATAM JEEVA”, are not deceptively similar at this stage and do not create a likelihood of confusion for an average consumer.

Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd, along with its affiliated society and founder Rishi Pal Chauhan, said they have used the “JIVA” mark since 1992 across Ayurvedic products and wellness services. They claimed the mark has built recognition and goodwill over the years in the health and wellness space.

The dispute surfaced in 2022 after a client asked about a “Shatam Jeeva” wellness retreat, prompting the company to look into the name. It found that Anuradha Sharma and another party were running a retreat under that mark and using related domain names. Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd alleged that the name was phonetically and structurally similar to its own and could mislead consumers.

A commercial court had, on November 17, 2025, restrained Anuradha Sharma and the co-appellant from using “SHATAM JEEVA” or any deceptively similar mark, and from carrying out activities that could amount to infringement or passing off.

Challenging that order, Anuradha Sharma and the co-appellant said the name “SHATAM JEEVA” was chosen to mark one hundred years of the Baidyanath brand. They explained that “Shatam” means one hundred and “Jeeva” means life, conveying longevity. They also argued that “Jiva” is a commonly used Sanskrit word and cannot be exclusively claimed by one entity. Their case rested on the marks being assessed as a whole rather than by isolating individual elements.

Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd countered that “Jiva” forms the central element of its trademark and has acquired distinctiveness through long use. It said the rival mark was adopted to benefit from that reputation and was likely to confuse consumers.

The High Court found the commercial court's order lacking clarity. It did not specify whether the injunction was granted for infringement or passing off and did not record any finding on goodwill, which is necessary for a passing off claim.

Looking at the marks as a whole, the Bench noted clear differences in spelling, visual presentation and structure. It referred to the variation between “Jiva” and “Jeeva”, and the distinct design elements, including the lotus device in the Jiva mark and the use of herbal imagery with the letter “S” in the Shatam Jeeva mark.

The Court said the marks must be assessed in their entirety rather than by isolating a single element.

“Jiva cannot be dissected and viewed independently, as both competing marks are composite device marks. The Defendants' impugned mark contains other prominent elements that make it clearly distinguishable and different from the Plaintiffs' mark.”

The Bench also rejected the argument that the use of “Shatam” suggested an association with the Jiva mark, noting that the word has no logical or reasonable connection with the plaintiffs' mark or products.

“There is no logical or reasonable connection between the word 'Shatam' and the Plaintiffs' mark or products, thus eliminating the possibility of it being construed as an attempt to associate with the Plaintiffs' mark. Further, even assuming arguendo that the use of 'By Baidyanath' is an afterthought, it still clearly indicates a deliberate attempt to differentiate the Defendants' mark from that of the Plaintiffs.”

On passing off, the court found that a key element, misrepresentation, was absent. There was no material to show that Anuradha Sharma and the co-appellant had presented their services as being connected with Jiva Ayurvedic Pharmacy Ltd.

With no deceptive similarity and no misrepresentation, the Bench held that a case for interim relief was not made out. The injunction was set aside and the appeal allowed. The court clarified that these findings are prima facie and will not affect the final outcome of the suit.

For Appellants: Senior Advocate Suhail Dutt with Advocates Prakhar Sharma and Azhar Alam

For Respondents: Advocates Virender Goswami, Soni Singh, Abhinav Bhalla, Swati Goswami, Parkhi Singh, and Vedang Upadhayay