Introduction:

In a significant order reinforcing the sanctity of trademark rights and consumer protection in the health and wellness industry, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Greenland Trading Company from manufacturing, selling or advertising any products using the mark “HIMALAYA” or any deceptively similar variant. The suit was filed by Himalaya Wellness Company, a globally recognized brand in the ayurvedic, pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and personal care market. Justice Tejas Karia, while issuing the injunction on November 27, 2025, observed that the branding adopted by Greenland Trading was visually, structurally and phonetically similar to the long-established “HIMALAYA” marks of the plaintiff, which have been in continuous use since 1930. The Court noted that the dispute did not merely involve competing marks but raised serious concerns about misleading consumers in a sector where product authenticity is essential for public health and safety. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice in June 2025, Greenland Trading failed to respond, compelling the plaintiff to seek urgent judicial protection. The Court, acknowledging Himalaya Wellness’ prior adoption, global reputation and extensive trademark portfolio, held that the defendant’s conduct was likely intended to ride upon the goodwill associated with the plaintiff’s iconic mark. The injunction will operate until March 12, 2026.

Arguments of the Plaintiffs:

Himalaya Wellness argued that it is the longstanding and globally reputed proprietor of the “HIMALAYA” trademarks, which have been in continuous and exclusive use since 1930 across a wide spectrum of wellness, nutraceutical, medicinal and personal care products. The plaintiffs emphasized that their distinctive green-and-orange trade dress, their stylized mark and their Himalaya leaf logo enjoy extensive statutory protection through multiple trademark and copyright registrations in India and abroad. They submitted that Greenland Trading’s products were found in June 2025 using an identical “HIMALAYA” mark and nearly identical green packaging, creating an unmistakable attempt to misrepresent their goods as belonging to or being associated with the plaintiff. The plaintiffs further argued that the defendant’s reproduction of the mark was not accidental or incidental but deliberate, calculated to exploit the enormous goodwill and consumer trust earned over nearly a century. They contended that such misuse posed a serious risk to consumers, especially since ayurvedic and nutraceutical items directly impact health, and that any confusion could lead consumers to rely on unverified or inferior products. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant ignored the cease-and-desist notice deliberately, reflecting mala fide intent, and that unless an immediate injunction was granted, irreparable damage would be caused to their brand identity, market reputation and consumer trust. They argued that this was a clear case of trademark infringement, passing off and unfair competition, and that the Court must protect the integrity of the mark from dilution.

Arguments of the Defendants:

Greenland Trading did not appear before the Court at the time the injunction was granted, making the proceedings ex-parte. However, based on their conduct and material on record, their likely defence would revolve around claiming absence of deceptive similarity or asserting independent adoption of the disputed mark. They may argue that the term “Himalaya” is geographically descriptive and thus not exclusively monopolizable. Further, the defendants may attempt to claim that their products, trade dress or font styles differ sufficiently to avoid consumer confusion. They may also suggest that their business scale or geographic reach does not threaten the global reputation of the plaintiff’s established brand, thereby seeking to minimise the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, they may contend that some elements of their packaging or branding were inspired by generic ayurvedic marketing practices rather than any intent to mislead consumers. However, the Court noted that despite receiving a legal notice in June 2025, the defendants failed to respond or cease their infringing activities, which significantly weakened any presumption of good faith and implied a deliberate attempt to trade upon the plaintiff’s established goodwill.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Tejas Karia, after examining the plaintiffs’ evidence and comparing the disputed marks and packaging, held that Greenland Trading’s adoption of the “HIMALAYA” name and green trade dress was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, thereby creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion. The Court observed that Himalaya Wellness was the prior adopter and long-standing user of the mark, with a massive market presence and deeply entrenched goodwill built since 1930. The judge noted that the similarity between the two marks was not merely superficial; rather, it was visual, phonetic and structural, rendering even an ordinary, unwary consumer highly susceptible to confusion. The Court emphasized that in the wellness and medicinal products sector, confusion can have serious public health consequences, making stringent protection necessary. Crucially, the Court identified a textbook “triple identity” situation—identical marks, identical categories of goods, and identical trade channels—which made infringement legally irrefutable. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s trade dress was well-known and widely recognized, and the defendant’s imitation reflected a clear intent to exploit the plaintiff’s brand reputation. The Court held that allowing the defendant to continue selling such products would dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark and cause irreparable harm to both the brand and its consumers. Consequently, the Court issued an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Greenland Trading from manufacturing, selling or advertising products bearing the “HIMALAYA” mark or any deceptively similar variant until the next hearing on March 12, 2026.