Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Delhi High Court: While hearing an application filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, wherein the petitioner, Himalaya Wellness sought a permanent injunction against the defendants restraining infringement of trade mark, copyright, dilution, tarnishment, passing off, rendition of accounts, damages etc., the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that the defendants use of the mark ‘HIMALAYA’ amounted to trade mark infringement as the impugned mark was visually, phonetically and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s marks.
Accordingly, the Court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from manufacturing, selling or distributing such items containing the impugned marks.
Background
The plaintiffs, Himalaya, are engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of ayurvedic medicaments and preparations since 1930 and have been continuously and extensively using the mark ‘HIMALAYA’ since 1930. By virtue of continuous and extensive use, the mark ‘HIMALAYA’ has acquired reputation and goodwill across the world. Under the mark ‘HIMALAYA’, the plaintiffs are offering multiple products in the category of nutrition, pharmaceutical, baby care, animal health, personal care, beauty, wellness, organic range etc. The plaintiffs’ products are sold across the world in over 100 countries under the Mark ‘Himalaya’ and several HIMALAYA logos such as, 
The subject marks are well-known to the Indian and global consumers due to the exposure of such consumers to advertisements of the plaintiffs’ products through various social and audio-visual mediums including advertisements on print, social media, internet presence, prominent magazines. The subject marks are unique to the plaintiffs and have acquired a secondary meaning to denote the plaintiffs’ products by virtue of their long-standing use for over almost a century. The plaintiffs are the prior adopters, users and registered proprietor of the subject marks and have been using the same extensively and continuously. The subject marks are identifiable and recognizable by both the members of the trade and public as being exclusively associated with the plaintiffs’ products and act as a source identifier of the plaintiffs’ products.
In June 2025, the plaintiff came across the defendant’s nutraceutical and wellness products sold under an identical mark, 
The petitioners further submitted that through an investigator they had unearthed that the defendant was a sole proprietorship operating out of Delhi. According to the proprietor of the defendant, she had been selling unbranded products obtained from the open market and re-branding them under the impugned mark for almost 6 years.
The petitioners also submitted that a naked eye comparison of the subject marks and the impugned marks reflect that the impugned marks lack in originality and are a blatant copy of the essential features forming part of the subject marks indicating the mala fide intention of the defendant.
The petitioners further averred that despite carrying on a parallel business of ayurvedic and wellness products identical to that of the plaintiffs, under the mark ‘GREENLAND’, the defendant has deliberately chosen to adopt and use the impugned mark, 
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that it was a case of triple identity where the impugned mark, the product category, the trade channel as well as the consumer base is identical. Prima facie the Court opined that the impugned mark is visually, phonetically, structurally and deceptively similar to the subject marks. To an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, one of the impugned marks and the subject marks are likely to appear identical, thereby leading to confusion regarding the source or origin of the products sold thereunder.
The Court considered the prior use and adoption of the mark by the plaintiff and recorded that a prima facie case was made out in favor if the plaintiffs. Balance of cconvenience lies in favour of the plaintiffs, as continued use of the impugned mark ‘HIMALAYA’ would erode the distinctiveness of the subject marks and dilute the plaintiffs’ goodwill built over decades. The plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable injury, particularly given that the competing products relate to health and wellness, where consumer confusion may have serious consequences and where loss of reputation cannot be compensated monetarily. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in any manner with regards to products and services under the marks 
The matter was further listed for 12-3-2026.
[Himalaya Wellness Co. v. Greenland Trading Co., C.S.(COMM) No. 1266 of 2025, decided on 27-11-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Pravin Anand, Prachi Agarwal, Manan Mondal, Advocates