Liv.72 Too Close to Liv.52: Calcutta HC Bars Shimla Drugs from Selling Product Imitating Himalaya

The matter was heard by Justice Ravi Krishan Kapur of the Calcutta High Court, Ordinary Original Civil Jurisdiction (Commercial Division), Original Side. The order was passed on 23 December 2025.

The petitioners hold valid and subsisting trademark registrations for “Liv.52”, including a word mark registered in 1957, with a long-standing and distinctive trade dress. The product has acquired immense reputation and goodwill due to decades of use, high turnover, and extensive advertising.

In October 2025, the petitioners discovered that Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited and another had launched a competing product branded “Liv.72”, with packaging and overall visual appearance closely resembling that of “Liv.52”.

The petitioners contended that Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited had adopted the mark “Liv.72” with dishonest intent, creating deceptive similarity in name, packaging, and colour scheme, particularly the use of green, white, and orange, which has long been associated with “Liv.52”.

They argued that such adoption amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and misrepresentation, likely to confuse consumers in the relevant market.

It was further submitted that Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited had applied for registration of the mark “Liv.72” (Application No. 5098280, Class 5) on a proposed-to-be-used basis, which was rejected, yet the company continued marketing the product—demonstrating bad faith.

Despite service of notice, Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited and another did not appear before the Court. The Court recorded that service was also effected through e-mail. No defence was placed on record at this stage.

The Court found overwhelming similarities between “Liv.52” and “Liv.72” in mark, packaging, and colour combination. It held that Shimla Drugs Health Care Private Limited had adopted a deceptively similar mark likely to cause confusion and deception.

The Court also noted the rejection of the trademark application and continued sale of the product as prima facie evidence of bad faith. It held that the petitioners had made out a strong prima facie case, and that balance of convenience and irreparable injury lay in their favour.

The Court passed the following order:

“In view of the above, the petitioners have been able to make out a strong prima facie case on merits. The balance of convenience and irreparable injury is also in favour of orders being granted keeping in mind the nature of the product and the class of goods involved.

In view of the above, there shall be an order in terms of prayers (a) to (c) of the Notice of Motion.”

Further, the order stated,

"Liberty is granted to the respondents to apply for vacating, variation or modification of the order. Let this matter appear on 7 January, 2026. In the meantime, the petitioners are directed to effect fresh service on the respondents and file an affidavit of service on the returnable date."

To view the official order, click the link below: