The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction to Himalaya Wellness Company, restraining Greenland Trading Company from using the “HIMALAYA” mark or any similar variant. The court’s decision aims to protect the sanctity of trademark rights and consumer protection in the health and wellness industry. Himalaya Wellness, a globally recognized brand, had filed a suit against Greenland Trading for manufacturing and selling products with a mark that was visually, structurally, and phonetically similar to their own.
The court observed that Greenland Trading’s actions were likely intended to ride on the goodwill associated with Himalaya Wellness’ iconic mark, which has been in use since 1930. The defendant’s failure to respond to a cease-and-desist notice and their continued use of the mark led the court to conclude that their conduct was mala fide. The court noted that the dispute raised serious concerns about misleading consumers in a sector where product authenticity is essential for public health and safety.
Himalaya Wellness argued that their distinctive green-and-orange trade dress, stylized mark, and Himalaya leaf logo enjoy extensive statutory protection through multiple trademark and copyright registrations. They contended that Greenland Trading’s reproduction of the mark was deliberate and calculated to exploit their goodwill and consumer trust. The court agreed, holding that the defendant’s adoption of the “HIMALAYA” name and green trade dress was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered marks, creating a strong likelihood of consumer confusion.
The court’s judgment emphasized the importance of protecting the integrity of the mark from dilution, especially in the wellness and medicinal products sector where confusion can have serious public health consequences. The injunction will operate until March 12, 2026, and the court’s decision serves as a significant reinforcement of the sanctity of trademark rights and consumer protection in the health and wellness industry. Greenland Trading’s likely defense, including claims of absence of deceptive similarity or independent adoption of the disputed mark, was weakened by their failure to respond to the cease-and-desist notice and their continued infringing activities.