Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Use Of “Liv-82 DS” Mark, Protects Himalaya's 'Liv.52'

The Delhi High Court has stepped in to protect Himalaya's liver care brand “Liv.52”, granting an ex-parte ad-interim injunction against KBIR Wellness Private Limited and those acting on its behalf. The order restrains them from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in products under the mark “Liv-82 DS” or any deceptively similar name.

Passing the order on April 21, 2026, Justice Tushar Rao Gedela noted that the resemblance between the rival marks, when seen alongside the overall packaging and presentation, was likely to mislead consumers.

With both products catering to liver care and moving through the same trade channels, the risk of confusion, the court indicated, was difficult to ignore.

“Considering the point of the entire get up and packaging, the marks of the defendant are likely to cause confusion and deception in the general public. Regard must also be had to the fact that the products manufactured by the defendant are in respect of liver care, which too is identical with the goods of the plaintiffs.,” the court said.

The plaintiffs, Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd and Himalaya Wellness Company, owners of the “Liv.52” brand adopted in 1955 and registered in over 25 countries, approached the court after discovering in March 2026 that the defendants were marketing liver care products under the mark “Liv-82 DS” on their website and e-commerce platforms such as Amazon and Flipkart.

Himalaya contended that the defendants had adopted a deceptively similar mark and altered their packaging to a green-and-white colour combination closely resembling that of the plaintiffs, in an attempt to ride on the goodwill of the “Liv.52” brand, which has been in continuous use for decades and recorded sales exceeding Rs.84 crore in 2024–25.

It was further submitted that the defendants do not hold any registration for the impugned mark and that their application for “Liv-82” has been objected to by the Registrar of Trade Marks in view of the plaintiffs' prior rights.

Evaluating the material on record, the court held that the plaintiffs had established a prima facie case, with the balance of convenience in their favour, and that irreparable harm would be caused if interim relief was not granted.

“At the outset and on the visual examination of both the marks 'Liv.52' and 'Liv.52 DS' of the plaintiff on the one hand and 'Liv-82 DS' of the defendants, the similarities between both appear to be striking. The letters 'Liv' of the plaintiff and 'LIV' of the defendant are identical except for the mark of the defendant is in capital letters, which hardly matters when considered as a whole. The use of the numerical '82' is also confusing when compared with '52' of the plaintiffs' mark. From a distance and on the counter of the retailer, the distinction may not be that clear and would cause confusion.,” the court observed.

The court noted that the competing products, trade channels, and consumer base were common, significantly increasing the likelihood of confusion or deception.

The bench also directed the defendants to file affidavits within two weeks disclosing the quantum and value of infringing stock in their possession, as well as the earnings generated from the sale or manufacture of such products since their launch.