Update Case Entry

Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.

Case Lawsuit Title *

Case / Trial ID Number

Jurisdiction Code *

Category *

Filing Date

Decision Verdict Date

Court / Tribunal

Bench / Panel Judges

Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)

Respondent / Defendant

Dispute Summary

Outcome / Ruling

Verdict Document PDF URL

Full text judgment

[Cites
6
, Cited by
0
]
Delhi High Court - Orders
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd & Anr vs Kbir Wellness Private Limited & Anr on 21 April, 2026
Author:
Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench:
Tushar Rao Gedela
$~37
              *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
              +         CS(COMM) 418/2026

HIMALAYA GLOBAL HOLDINGS LTD & ANR.         .....Plaintiffs
                                    Through: Ms. Suhrita Majumdar, Mr. Vishal
                                             Nagpal, Mr. Sharad Besoya and Mr.
                                             Bal Krishan Singh, Advocates.
                                    versus

KBIR WELLNESS PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR.                                                      ....Defendants
                                     Through:

CORAM:
                        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
                                      ORDER
%                       21.04.2026
              I.A. 10891/2026 (Additional Documents)
1.        The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
              Order XI Rule 1(4)
of the Code of Civil Procedure
, 1908 ('
CPC
') as
              applicable to commercial suits under the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015
('
CC
              Act
') seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
2.        The plaintiffs are permitted to file additional documents in accordance
              with the provisions of the
CC Act
and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
              Rules, 2018.
3.        Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10890/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
4.        This is an application filed by the plaintiffs seeking exemption from
              instituting pre-litigation mediation under
Section 12A
of the CC Act.
5.        As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
              judgment of the Supreme Court in
Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi
:
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               mediation is granted.
6.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10892/2026 (Exemption)
7.        This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing typed copies of documents which may
              be dim/illegible at page nos.48, 60, 69 to 174 and 577 and in vernacular
              language at page nos.644 to 872 of plaintiffs' documents.
8.        Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, true
              typed/translated/legible/clear copies of the documents with proper margins be
              filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendants.
9.        The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 10889/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2,
CPC
)
10.       Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under
              Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2
of CPC
, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim
              injunction against the defendants.
11.       Plaintiff no.1, a company registered under the laws of the Cayman
              Islands, claims to be the owner of trademarks, patents and other intellectual
              property rights, which are licensed to and used by the plaintiff no.2/Himalaya
              Wellness Company which is a partnership firm, for the purpose of
              manufacture and sales of products in India and abroad. Plaintiff no.2 is in the
              business of manufacture and marketing of ayurvedic medicines and health
              products since 1930 and has over the years diversified into manufacturing and
              selling of cosmetic products as well. Plaintiff no.2, having been in the said
              business for over nine decades, claims to be one of the most renowned and
              respected business concerns in India as well as abroad.
12.       It is claimed that the plaintiffs started their operations in Dehradun,
              way back in the 1930s, and later spread the wings to Mumbai and across the
              country. In 1975, the plaintiffs set up an advanced manufacturing facility in
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               Makali, Bangalore, India, which today houses the principal office of plaintiff
              no.2. Over the years, the plaintiffs claim to have initiated the use of tools of
              modern science to create pharmaceutical-grade ayurvedic products to pioneer
              research and converting Ayurveda's herbal tradition into a complete range of
              proprietary formulations dedicated to healthy living and longevity, which has
              been the foundation of the plaintiff companies' ethos. It is claimed that today,
              the plaintiffs' products address the healthcare needs of consumers in over 100
              countries and have been endorsed by 400,000 doctors around the globe. The
              plaintiffs claim to have been awarded an ISO 9001:2000 certification.
13.       The plaintiffs claim to be a leading global herbal health and personal
              care organization, offering close to 500 health care products in the domain of
              pharmaceuticals, herbal medicines, personal care and wellness in over 100
              countries, and deals in several well-known products and brands including
              Liv.52, Septilin, Cystone, Bonnisan, Serpina and Rumalaya forte, amongst
              others.
14.       It is claimed that the trademark 'Liv.52' was adopted by the
              predecessors-in-interest of the plaintiffs way back in the year 1955 and has
              been in open, continuous and extensive use ever since. The said product is the
              flagship brand of the plaintiffs and a top selling herbal medicine synonymous
              with the plaintiffs' HIMALAYA brand. The plaintiffs' goods under the
              'Liv.52' trademark are available in the market in different variants such as
              Liv.52 Syrup, Liv.52 DS Syrup, Liv.52 Tablets, Liv.52 DS Tablets, Liv.52
              Drops, Liv.52 HB Capsules, Liv.52 Protec Liquid, Liv.52 Protec-PPS, Liv.52
              Pet Liquid, Liv.52 Vet, Liv.52 Protec Poultry, Liv.52 Protec and Liv.52
              Furglow Liquid. The photographs of the plaintiffs' goods under the trademark
              'Liv.52' and its variants are reproduced hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
15.       Plaintiffs' goods under the 'Liv.52' trademark and its variants are sold

under the plaintiffs' house mark Himalaya/                                                             , which is
              represented in a unique and stylized manner with a distinctive get up,
              placement and colour combination of green and orange along with a device of
              an orange leaf. Further, the plaintiffs' goods under the trademark 'Liv.52'
              since 2001 are sold in trade dress/packaging that employs a predominantly
              green colour in a colour combination of green, white and orange.
16.       It is claimed that the trademark 'Liv.52' was adopted by the plaintiffs
              in the year 1955 and has been in continuous and extensive use since then, i.e.
              for almost 71 years. Further, the current trade dress of plaintiffs' goods under
              the 'Liv.52' trademark remains unchanged and has been in circulation in the
              market from 2001, i.e., since 24 years. Therefore, it is claimed that by virtue
              of such long, continuous and extensive use, the plaintiffs have garnered
              immense goodwill and reputation in respect of the same, so much so that the
              plaintiffs' trademark 'Liv.52' and its attendant trade dress is today a
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               household name amongst the consumers. In fact, the plaintiffs' 'Liv.52' brand
              is claimed to have been inducted in the Limca Book of Records as India's
              highest selling herbal drug and today, around 1 billion tablets and 13 million
              syrup bottles under the trademark 'Liv.52' are claimed to be sold every year
              across the globe.
17.       The plaintiffs further in the course of their business have applied for
              and obtained registrations in relation to the trademark 'Liv.52', and its
              variants in Class-5. In fact, the said trademark is claimed to be registered in
              over 25 countries. The details of the trademark registrations in favor of the
              plaintiffs are mentioned hereunder:-
18.       It is claimed that the plaintiffs' goods under the trademark 'Liv. 52' and
              its attendant trade dress have achieved tremendous sales which is prima facie
              evidence of the immense goodwill and reputation associated with the
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               plaintiffs' trademark 'Liv.52' and its attendant trade dress. The details of
              plaintiff no.2's turnover of its products under the trademark 'Liv.52' and its
              variants are provided hereunder:-
19.       Further, the plaintiffs are claimed to have made significant investments
              towards advertisement and promotion of the goods bearing the trademark
              'Liv.52' and its attendant trade dress, through various electronic media and
              print media etc., globally. Additionally, the plaintiffs claim to have been
              vigilant in safeguarding their intellectual property rights in their trademark
              'Liv.52' and have taken necessary actions at various forums, the details of
              which are mentioned in para 19 of the plaint. The plaintiffs assert that the
              trademark 'Liv.52' is entitled to be treated as a well-known trademark under
Section 2(1)(zg)
of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and entitled to statutory
              protection by this Court.
20.       It is claimed that the defendant no.1 is engaged in the business of
              manufacturing/marketing of herbal and Ayurvedic medicinal preparations and
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               defendant no.2 is engaged in the business of manufacturing of
              pharmaceuticals and Ayurvedic products, etc. As per the packaging of the
              impugned goods, the defendant no.1 is marketing and defendant no.2 is
              manufacturing the said goods under the infringing mark 'Liv-82'.
21.       In and around March, 2026, the plaintiffs claim to have come across
              listings of defendant no.1's goods namely capsules and syrups for liver care
              under the mark 'Liv-82 DS', which is deceptively similar to the plaintiffs'
              registered trademark 'Liv.52'. The said goods were being advertised and
              offered for sale on defendant no.1's website - http://kbirwellness.com, as well
              as on various e-commerce platforms such as Tata 1mg, Amazon, Flipkart etc.
22.       It is stated that the plaintiffs conducted an investigation which revealed
              that the defendants do not hold any registration in respect of the infringing
              mark. It was however discovered that the defendant no.1 has filed an

application for registration of the infringing mark
              under Trade Mark Application No.5947348 in Class-5, claiming user since
              24.12.2022, which has been objected to by the Registrar of Trade Marks
              under
Section 11(1)
of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, on the ground of the
              plaintiffs' prior registered trademark 'Liv.52'.
23.       It is further stated that the internet searches revealed that the defendants
              were previously using a different packaging for the impugned goods under the

infringing mark. The earlier packaging                                                         featured distinct
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               colour scheme, which has now been altered to a green and white combination
              in the current iteration, as depicted hereunder:-
It is stated that the change of packaging clearly is not coincidental but a
              deliberate attempt by the defendants to adopt a trade dress closely resembling
              that of the plaintiffs.
24.       The plaintiffs thus state that the adoption and use of the infringing mark
              by the defendant no.1 is, therefore, subsequent and pales into insignificance in
              comparison to the plaintiffs' long, continuous, and extensive use of the
              'Liv.52' trademark since 1955. In any case, it is submitted that the adoption
              and use of the infringing mark is ex facie dishonest and in bad faith and no
              rights can accrue in favour of the defendants on the basis of such unlawful
              adoption and use.
25.       Predicated thereon, an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is being sought
              against the defendant.
26.       Having perused the plaint and the documents annexed therewith and
              having heard the arguments of learned counsel for the plaintiffs, this Court is
              of the considered opinion that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction would be in
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
               order.
27.       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 letters 'DS' in both are identical and clearly, there is no
              distinction there too. 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 trade circles, distribution
              channels and retailers too appear to be common. The consumers too are
              common for such products, significantly raising the likelihood of confusion or
              deception. It is likely that an unwary consumer with average intelligence and
              imperfect recollection may get confused or deceived into purchasing the
              goods of the defendant believing them to be as those of the plaintiffs or
              associated with the plaintiffs.
28.       Moreover, according to the plaintiffs, the marks of the defendants are
              not registered and seem to have entered into the market much after the
              plaintiffs had established its brand and trademarks. The plaintiffs have also
              been vigilant in protecting their proprietary rights over their trademarks by
              preferring lawsuits against infringers in the past too. The sales turnover and
              expenditure on advertisements and promotion lend credibility to the fact that
              the plaintiffs have garnered substantial goodwill over the years.
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
29.       Having regard thereto, the plaintiffs have been able to prima facie
              establish a strong case in its favour. The balance of convenience is clearly
              tilted in favour of the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs shall suffer irreparable loss and
              injury which may not be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case
              appropriate ex-parte ad-interim injunction orders are not passed against the
              defendants.
30.       In view of the aforesaid, the following directions are passed:-
a) Defendants, its partners, proprietors, servants, agents, and all others in
                        active concert or participation with the defendants are restrained from
                        manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, marketing,
                        directly or indirectly dealing in impugned goods bearing the infringing
                        mark 'Liv-82 DS' and/or any other mark/name which is identical
                        and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' registered trademark
                        'Liv.52';
b) Defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents,
                        manufacturers, sellers, distributors, dealers, stockists and all others
                        acting for and on their behalf are restrained from making, selling,
                        distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale, and in any other
                        manner, directly or indirectly, dealing in any goods or goods packaging
                        formats including pouches, sachets, boxes, cartons and containers,
                        bearing the infringing mark 'Liv-82 DS' and/or any other mark which
                        is identical to and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' trademark
                        'Liv.52' so as to result in passing off of the defendants' goods as those
                        of the plaintiffs';
c) Defendant no.1 is directed to file an affidavit, within a period of two
                        weeks from the service of notice of the present application, disclosing
                        the following facts:-
(i) Quantum of the impugned goods under the infringing mark 'Liv-82
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
                           DS' in possession of defendant no.1 as of April, 2026 and market
                          value of the said stock in Indian Rupee.
(ii) Statement reflecting the earnings of defendant no.1 in Indian
                          Rupee, from the sale of the impugned goods under the infringing mark
                          'Liv-82 DS' from the date of first sale upto April, 2026.
d) Defendant no.2 is directed to file an affidavit, within a period of two
                        weeks from the service of notice of the present application, disclosing
                        the following facts:-
(i) Quantum of the impugned goods under the infringing mark 'Liv-82
                          DS' manufactured by defendant no.2 from the date of first
                          manufacture till April, 2026 and market value of the said stock in
                          Indian Rupee.
(ii) Quantum of the impugned goods under the infringing mark 'Liv-
82 DS' in possession of defendant no.2 as on April, 2026 and market
                          value of the said stock in Indian Rupee.
(iii) Statement reflecting the earnings of defendant no.2 in Indian
                          Rupee from manufacture of the impugned goods under the infringing
                          mark 'Liv-82 DS' from the date of first manufacture upto April, 2026.
31.       Issue notice.
32.       Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendants within four
              weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks
              thereafter.
33.       Compliance of
Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC
shall be done within ten
              days from date.
CS(COMM) 418/2026
34.       Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
35.       Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the
              defendants through all permissible modes.
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43
36.       The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
              defendants within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons.
              Alongwith the Written Statement, the defendants shall also file Affidavit of
              Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiffs, without which the
              Written Statement shall not be taken on record.
37.       Liberty is granted to the plaintiffs to file Replication, if any, within 30
              days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
              filed by the plaintiffs, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
              defendants be filed by the plaintiffs, without which the Replication shall not
              be taken on record.
38.       In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in
              their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the
              list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
39.       If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
              shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
40.       List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 20.07.2026 for completion
              of service and pleadings.
41.       List before the Court on 30.09.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
              APRIL 21, 2026/anj
CS(COMM) 418/2026                                                                                Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 22/04/2026 at 21:40:43

Cancel