The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “Liv-22” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademark “Liv.52” in relation to impugned goods. The use of the mark “Liv-22” in relation to the defendants’ goods was treated as prima facie warranting restraint because it was alleged to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs’ registered trademark “Liv.52” and likely to mislead the public into associating the defendants’ goods with the plaintiffs.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted the plaintiffs’ case regarding the long, continuous and extensive use of “Liv.52”, its reputation and the defendants’ use of “Liv-22” for similar products, and after perusing the documents as well as the rival marks, observed that the plaintiffs had made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad interim injunction.
The Bench observed that, at the ad interim stage, where the plaintiffs demonstrate longstanding and registered rights in a trademark, goodwill and reputation attached to that mark, and the defendants are shown prima facie to be using an identical or deceptively similar mark in relation to similar goods so as to cause likely confusion and injury to goodwill, the Court may grant ex parte ad interim injunction on the basis of prima facie infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable harm.
Briefly, the suit was instituted by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and another plaintiff seeking relief against the defendants’ use of the mark “Liv-22” in relation to herbal liver-care products. The plaintiffs pleaded that they are engaged in the manufacture and marketing of ayurvedic medicines, health products and cosmetic products, and that the mark “Liv.52” was adopted by their predecessors-in-interest in 1955 and has been in continuous and extensive use ever since.
The plaintiff asserted that “Liv.52” is their flagship brand, sold in multiple variants, and that the products are marketed with a distinctive trade dress associated with the plaintiffs’ house mark “Himalaya”, including a green, white and orange colour combination and an orange leaf device. The plaintiffs further relied on their longstanding sales, promotional expenditure, statutory registrations, international reputation, scientific recognition, and prior enforcement history concerning the “Liv.52” mark and the expression “LIV”.
The plaintiffs alleged that Defendant No. 1 was manufacturing and supplying herbal products under the mark “Liv-22”, and that Defendant No. 2 was also manufacturing and supplying herbal products such as syrups, tonics, drops, capsules, tablets and personal care products under the same impugned mark.
According to the plaintiffs, both defendants appeared to be working together, and in March 2026 they discovered online listings offering liver-care syrups under “Liv-22”. The plaintiffs contended that the defendants had no registration for the mark “Liv-22”, that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to “Liv.52”, and that its use for identical goods through common trade channels and for the same consumer base was likely to cause confusion and misrepresentation, thereby harming the plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation.
Appearances:
Vishal Nagpal, Suhrita Majumdr, Manya Jain and Bal Krishan Singh, Advocates, for Plaintiffs
NA, for Defendants
Order copy- Himalaya Global Holdings vs Awadh Bihari Badal Proprietor of Aloe Care Arogya Life