Trademark infringement occurs when a defendant's use of a mark creates confusion with a plaintiff's registered trademark, justifying injunctive relief and damages.

O R D E R

% 25.02.2025 MINI PUSHKARNA, J (ORAL)

I.A. 46699/2024 (Application under Order VIII Rule 10 read with Section 151 CPC)

1. The present suit has been filed seeking permanent injunction restraining infringement of plaintiffs‟ trademarks and logo, „Liv.52‟ and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 433/2024 Page 1 of 26 „ ‟ against defendants‟ use of the infringing marks, „Liv-333‟ and „ ‟, along with other incidental reliefs.

2. The present application under Order VIII Rule 10, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”), has been filed on behalf of the plaintiffs, seeking pronouncement of judgment against the defendants pursuant to closure of the defendants‟ right to file written statement.

3. The case set up by the plaintiffs, is as follows:

3.1 The plaintiffs are a leading global herbal health and personal care organization founded in the year 1930 that deals in several well-known products and brands like Liv.52 under their reputed trademark HIMALAYA.

3.2 The fanciful HIMALAYA logo, was conceived, developed and adopted by the plaintiffs in the year 2001. The plaintiffs are the registered proprietors of the HIMALAYA trademarks and logos, the details of which, as given in the plaint, are reproduced as under:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 433/2024 Page 2 of 26

3.3 The aforesaid HIMALAYA logos have become iconic in consumer consciousness and have garnered significant reputation and goodwill from their long, extensive and continuous use. Further, the plaintiffs have also Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 433/2024 Page 3 of 26 obtained copyright registrations in their HIMALAYA marks, the details of which, as provided in the plaint, are reproduced as under:

3.4 The plaintiffs‟ product under the mark „Liv.52‟, is a natural remedy for improving liver function, which was adopted by the predecessors-in- interest of the plaintiffs in the year 1955, and has been in open, continuous and extensive use ever since. The said product is sold under the HIMALAYA trademark and is available in the market in different variations 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, Liv.52 Furglow Liquid, etc.

3.5 The infringing goods bearing the impugned marks Liv-333 and are manufactured by defendant no.2 which are then marketed and sold by defendant no. 1. Further, in January, 2024, the plaintiffs came across several listings for the goods, „capsules and tonic‟

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 433/2024 Page 4 of 26 under the infringing Liv-333 mark and RAJASTHAN logo on various e-

commerce websites such as Amazon, Flipkart, JioMart, IndiaMart, etc.

3.6 Upon conducting online searches, the plaintiffs came across an rd invoice of the defendants dated 23 April, 2015, which purportedly showed commercial use of the Liv-333 mark. A copy of the said invoice, as filed with the suit documents, is reproduced as under:

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CS(COMM) 433/2024 Page 5 of 26

3.7 The plaintiffs sent a cease-and-desist notice dated 17^th January, 2024, calling upon the defendant no. 1 to cease use of the infringing mark. Despite receipt of the said cease-and-desist notice, the said defendant failed to tender any response or stop the user of the impugned marks, constraining the plaintiffs to approach this Court by way of the present suit.

4. This Court notes that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction is in operation against the defendants in terms the order dated 24^th May, 2024, whereby, the defendants were restrained from dealing in goods and packaging bearing the infringing mark „Liv-333‟, and/or any other mark which is identical and/or deceptively similar to plaintiffs‟ registered mark „Liv.52‟.

5. This Court further notes that the right of the defendants to file written statement has already been closed by this Court vide order dated 23