Defendant Restrained from Using Deceptively Similar Trademarks and Trade Dress in Favor of Himalaya Wellness Company
In a significant ruling on March 30, 2026, the Delhi High Court granted an interim injunction to Himalaya Wellness Company, effectively restraining Mr. Ashraful Islam from using trademarks and trade dress that were deemed deceptively similar to those of the plaintiff's well-established brand, "HIMALAYA." The court's decision underscores the importance of protecting trademark rights and preventing consumer confusion in the marketplace.
The case, presided over by Justice Ms. Jyoti Singh, involved claims of trademark infringement and passing off by the defendant, who had adopted the mark "HIMALAYA THE NUTRA HEALTH CARE," closely resembling the trademark and trade dress of the plaintiffs. Himalaya Wellness Company, a renowned entity in the herbal and ayurvedic product sector, argued that the defendant's use of similar marks and trade dress was likely to mislead consumers and dilute the goodwill associated with their brand.
The court examined the extensive use and registrations of the "HIMALAYA" trademarks by the plaintiffs, which span various categories including personal care, pharmaceuticals, and wellness products. The plaintiffs demonstrated a strong prima facie case by establishing their longstanding reputation, supported by significant sales turnover and promotional expenditures over the years.
In light of these facts, the court found that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs and that they would likely suffer irreparable harm if the injunction was not granted. Justice Singh noted that the defendant's actions were likely to cause confusion among consumers, given the identical nature of the goods and overlapping trade channels.
The interim order prohibits the defendant, along with any associated parties, from manufacturing, selling, or advertising products using the impugned trademarks or trade dress. This includes the domain name "himalayanutrawellness.com," which the court found to be deceptively similar to the plaintiffs' domain.
The ruling highlights the judiciary's role in upholding trademark rights and preventing unfair competition. It serves as a reminder to businesses to ensure that their branding and marketing practices do not infringe upon established trademarks, thus safeguarding consumer interests and maintaining market integrity.
Bottom Line:
Trademark infringement and passing off - Interim injunction granted against the defendant for using deceptively similar trademarks and trade dress, which are likely to cause confusion and mislead the public.
Statutory provision(s):
- Commercial Courts Act, 2015 Section 12-A
- Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2
- Copyright Act, 1957 Section 2(c) and Section 17
Himalaya Wellness Company v. Mr. Ashraful Islam, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880384
