Delhi HC Halts Sale of Health Products Using Deceptively Similar Mark to Himalaya

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction to restrict the use of a deceptively similar trademark, thus protecting the long-established rights of the Himalaya Wellness Company in its registered mark HIMALAYA'. The injunction prevents the defendant from infringing upon the plaintiffs trademark, copyright, and trade dress.

The order was passed by the Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia while hearing an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code,1908.

The Court noted that the defendant's use of the mark was visually, phonetically, and structurally similar to the plaintiff's marks. This similarity could confuse an average consumer of imperfect recollection, making the two marks appear identical and leading to doubts about the products' source.

Himalaya Wellness Company had submitted before the Court that they are engaged in the manufacturing and distribution of ayurvedic preparations and medicaments since 1930. The company has been continuously and extensively using the Mark HIMALAYA' since that year. Through this long and wide usage, the Mark 'HIMALAYA' has acquired reputation and goodwill across the world.

The plaintiffs submitted that the Subject Marks are identifiable and recognizable by the trade and public as being exclusively associated with the plaintiffs' products. They are the prior adopters, users, and registered proprietor of the marks.

Opposing the plea, the defendant, Greenland Trading Company was found to be selling nutraceutical and wellness products under an identical mark. The plaintiffs stated that the defendant had simply removed the orange leaf device from the letter H' to create a deceptively similar device mark. The investigation revealed the defendant was a sole proprietorship operating out of Delhi.

The Court noted that this was a case of "triple identity," where the defendant's mark, the product category, the trade channel, and the consumer base were all identical to the plaintiffs.

The Court recorded that a prima facie case was made out in favour of the plaintiffs. The balance of convenience also lies with the plaintiffs, as continued use of the defendant's mark would dilute the distinctiveness of the Subject Marks and erode goodwill. The plaintiffs were likely to suffer irreparable injury, especially since the competing products relate to health and wellness.

Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any manner with products and services under the marks similar to 'HIMALAYA'. The matter is listed before the Joint Registrar on 20.01.2026 for completion of service and pleadings.

Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. Vs. Greenland Trading Company CS(COMM) 1266/2025

Order Dated: 27.11.2025

Bench: Justice Tejas Karia