Back
Restrains Herbawish Use, Finds Mark to Herbalife
The has issued an restraining Ashish Kumar and his company from using the marks “Herbawish” and “Herbawish Nutrition”, along with a three-leaf logo and that closely mimic those of global nutrition giant . The order, passed by a single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh on , marks a decisive intervention against what the court described as “” enhanced by the “Herba.”
The ruling underscores the strict standards applied by Indian courts in cases involving phonetic and visual resemblance, particularly when the goods and trade channels are identical. The court found that Herbalife had established a strong , that the lay in its favour, and that it would suffer without interim protection.
A Global Brand with a Significant Indian Presence
, a well-known direct-selling company in the nutrition and wellness sector, told the court that it owns registrations for the word marks “Herbalife” and “Herbalife Nutrition”, as well as a three-leaf device logo and product marks such as “Formula 1”, “Afresh”, and “Cell-U-Loss”. The company also asserted in its distinctive .
The company’s global reach is formidable: it reported suggested retail sales of USD 8.6 billion in 2025 and operates approximately 63,000 nutrition clubs worldwide. Its Instagram following exceeds 2 million globally, including nearly 400,000 in India. These facts were presented to demonstrate the brand’s substantial goodwill and reputation, which the defendants were allegedly exploiting.
The Discovery of Infringing Activity
Herbalife informed the court that it discovered in that the defendants were selling products under the marks “Herbawish” and “Herbawish Nutrition”. The packaging featured a three-leaf device and a that, according to Herbalife’s counsel, were to its own. Moreover, the defendants had copied the name of one of Herbalife’s products, “Personalized Protein Powder”, and used a nearly identical three-leaf logo.
The plaintiff argued that “Herbawish” is both visually and phonetically to “Herbalife”, and that the “Herba” increases the among consumers. The defendants’ intention to suggest an association with Herbalife was further evident from their wholesale copying of the packaging layout and colour scheme.
Court’s Analysis: “Deception Enhanced by ”
Justice Jyoti Singh, after reviewing the rival marks and packaging, agreed with Herbalife’s submissions. The court observed that the products are sold through identical trade channels and target the same consumer base—individuals seeking nutrition and wellness products. This overlap, the court held, “there is every amongst members of public.”
The bench specifically noted that “the deception is enhanced owing to ‘Herba’.” This observation aligns with established trademark law principles that the first part of a mark often carries greater weight in consumer perception. The court further found that the rival products were “difficult to distinguish by a person of average intelligence and ,” a classic test for .
The court also took note of the defendants’ copying of the packaging—including the three-leaf logo and the product name “Personalized Protein Powder”—as evidence of a deliberate attempt to ride on Herbalife’s goodwill. This, the court held, strengthened the case for and .
and Takedown Directions
Based on the strength of Herbalife’s case, the restrained the defendants, until the next hearing, from using the marks “Herbawish”, “Herbawish Nutrition”, the three-leaf device, or any mark to Herbalife’s trademarks. The restraint also extends to the use of the impugned and the word “Herbawish” as part of any domain name.
Additionally, the court directed e-commerce platforms , , and to take down the specific infringing listings identified in the order within 36 hours. This directive reflects the court’s recognition that online platforms play a critical role in curbing the sale of counterfeit or goods.
Legal Implications and Broader Context
This case serves as a reminder of the robust protection Indian courts afford to , especially where the defendant’s conduct suggests intentional imitation. The court’s emphasis on the “Herba” and the overall visual similarity of the packaging reinforces the principle that even minor differences in spelling or design will not shield an infringer if the overall impression is likely to confuse consumers.
For legal practitioners, the judgment reiterates the importance of presenting concrete evidence of the plaintiff’s reputation and the defendant’s copying—such as the identical product name and the three-leaf logo—to secure . The takedown directions also highlight the increasing judicial expectation that online marketplaces must promptly remove infringing content to avoid being drawn into liability.
The case is likely to have a significant impact on the nutrition and wellness industry, where brand differentiation is crucial. Companies with established marks will find this decision encouraging, while smaller players must exercise caution to avoid inadvertently creating marks that could be deemed .
Conclusion
The ’s interim order in is a strong statement against and . By restraining the use of “Herbawish” and associated marks, the court has sent a clear signal that even phonetic similarity enhanced by a can justify immediate . The case will next be heard on a date to be fixed, but for now, the firmly rests with the plaintiff—protecting its global brand and its substantial Indian consumer base from potential confusion and dilution.
