Delhi HC Grants Interim Injunction to Himalaya Against Healing Pharma Over Alleged Trade Dress Copying
New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has passed an ad-interim injunction in favour of Himalaya Global Holdings and another plaintiff against Healing Pharma India Private Limited and other defendants, after prima facie finding that the names, packaging and colour combinations used for the defendants' products corresponded so closely with Himalaya's products that an ordinary consumer could be misled into confusing one for the other.
Justice A.J. Bhambhani, while hearing Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 892/2026, on August 18, 2026, observed at the preliminary stage that Himalaya had succeeded in establishing a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience was in its favour, and that irreparable loss and injury could result if interim protection was not granted. The Court consequently granted an ad-interim injunction in terms of the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs concerning the allegedly infringing trade dress and also directed the parties to attempt an amicable settlement through the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.
The commercial dispute concerns allegations by Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. that Healing Pharma India Private Limited and the other defendants had adopted packaging and trade dress for several products that allegedly copied Himalaya's established product presentation.
Himalaya approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against what it described as the defendants' allegedly infringing trade dress. Through an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, the plaintiffs sought temporary injunctions against the defendants, their directors, employees, officers, servants, agents, manufacturers, sellers, distributors, dealers, stockists and others acting on their behalf.
As reflected in the comparative product images reproduced on pages 4 and 5 of the order, Himalaya objected to the packaging/trade dress of products including Liverheal, Liverheal 52, Liverheal DS, Senstone, Brainta, Spermax, Pilefine and Confidance X, alleging similarity with the trade dress associated with Himalaya products. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from making, selling, distributing, advertising, exporting, offering for sale or otherwise dealing in goods bearing the disputed trade dress or other packaging alleged to be identical or deceptively similar to Himalaya's trade dress.
The dispute therefore extends beyond the similarity of individual product names. At its core, Himalaya's case concerns the defendants' overall presentation of the products—including their names, packaging, colour scheme and trade dress—and the possibility that these features could cause consumers to associate the defendants' products with Himalaya.
Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. and another plaintiff instituted the commercial suit, CS(COMM) 892/2026, before the Delhi High Court against Healing Pharma India Private Limited and other defendants. The matter came before Justice A.J. Bhambhani on August 18, 2026. Apart from the main suit, several interlocutory applications were moved by Himalaya, including applications concerning exemption from pre-litigation mediation, filing of additional documents, leave to serve interrogatories and interim injunctive relief.
The Court allowed Himalaya's application seeking exemption from attempting pre-litigation mediation, having regard to the facts and circumstances and the applicable judicial precedents. It also allowed the plaintiffs to place additional documents on record within 30 days, while clarifying that the relevance and admissibility of those documents would be considered subsequently.
The crucial application, however, was I.A. 22312/2026, through which Himalaya sought immediate interim protection against the defendants' allegedly infringing packaging and trade dress.
Appearing for the plaintiffs, senior advocate J. Sai Deepak alleged that the defendants had adopted the impugned trade dress by “slavishly copying” the artistic work contained in Himalaya's previously adopted and extensively used “HIMALAYA” trade dress.
Counsel specifically drew the Court's attention to a comparative table incorporated in paragraph 23 of the interim injunction application to demonstrate the alleged copying. Himalaya's case was that the similarities were not incidental but extended to the overall trade dress and presentation of the products.
The product comparisons reproduced in the order are important to understanding the dispute. Himalaya alleged that the defendants were dealing in products including Liverheal, Liverheal 52, Liverheal DS, Senstone, Brainta, Spermax, Pilefine and Confidance X using disputed packaging/trade dress. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from using not only the specific packaging shown before the Court but also any other packaging that was identical or deceptively similar to Himalaya's trade dress and capable of resulting in the defendants' goods being passed off as those of Himalaya.
Himalaya additionally asserted copyright-related rights over the artistic work embodied in its trade dress. Its prayer sought restraint against packaging alleged to constitute a substantial reproduction or colourable imitation of the artistic work forming part of Himalaya's trade dress.
The plaintiffs also sought disclosure-related directions against the defendants. As shown in the reliefs reproduced on pages 5 and 6 of the order, Himalaya sought affidavits disclosing matters such as the quantity of disputed goods manufactured or sold, stock remaining as of July 2026, market value of the stock and earnings derived from sales of goods under the impugned trade dress.
At this stage of the proceedings, the order does not record a detailed merits-based defence or written rebuttal from Healing Pharma comparable to the detailed submissions made on behalf of Himalaya. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute arguments to the defendants that do not appear in the Court's order.
Counsel appearing for defendant No. 1 accepted notice on advance copy and sought time to file a reply to the interim injunction application. The Court accordingly granted time for replies and rejoinders and directed completion of pleadings.
However, during the hearing, counsel for defendant No. 1 made an important statement concerning one of the disputed products. The Court recorded that, as of November 10, 2025, defendant No. 1 had discontinued the product “Liverheal 52” and was marketing the product under the name and style “Liverheal.” The Court took this statement on record.
Defendant No. 1 also indicated willingness to explore an amicable settlement through mediation. Himalaya's senior counsel concurred with the proposal, following which the Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre.
Accordingly, at this preliminary stage, Healing Pharma's recorded position principally consisted of seeking time to formally respond, informing the Court about discontinuation of “Liverheal 52,” and expressing willingness to attempt settlement through mediation.
After examining the material placed before it and considering Himalaya's submissions, the Delhi High Court made a significant prima facie observation regarding the similarity between the rival products.
Justice Bhambhani observed that, beyond what had been submitted by Himalaya's senior counsel, the names, packaging and colour combinations of the defendants' products corresponded so closely to the plaintiffs' products that an ordinary person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was likely to be misled into confusing one product for another.
This observation is particularly important because the Court's preliminary assessment was based on the overall commercial impression created by the competing products rather than merely one isolated element. The Court expressly referred to the combination of the product names, packaging and colours in determining whether consumer confusion was likely.
The Court then applied the three principal requirements governing interim injunctive relief—prima facie case, balance of convenience and irreparable injury.
On a preliminary appreciation of the matter, the Court found that Himalaya had successfully made out a prima facie case. It further held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of Himalaya and against the defendants. Finally, the Court found that Himalaya appeared likely to suffer irreparable loss and injury if the requested interim injunction was not granted.
These findings led the Court to grant immediate ad-interim protection pending further proceedings.
The Court passed an ad-interim injunction in favour of Himalaya and against the defendants in terms of prayers 41(a), 41(b), 41(c), 41(d) and 41(e) reproduced in the order, with the injunction to continue till the next date of hearing.
The reliefs sought in those prayers included restraint concerning the defendants' disputed trade dress and packaging and directions requiring defendants to disclose information relating to the quantity and value of disputed goods, existing stock and earnings from those goods.
The Court also directed the plaintiffs to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks.
Despite granting interim protection to Himalaya, the Court also opened the door to an amicable resolution of the commercial dispute.
After counsel for defendant No. 1 expressed willingness to discuss settlement through mediation and Himalaya agreed, the Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre and requested the Organizing Secretary to appoint an appropriate mediator.
The parties were directed to approach the Mediation Centre on August 24, 2026 at 2:30 pm. The mediation was ordered to be time-bound and concluded within three weeks, and the Court directed that the matter be listed on September 30, 2026, awaiting the outcome of mediation.
Importantly, the August 18 order is not a final judgment deciding the underlying trademark/trade-dress suit. It is an interim order passed at an early stage of the commercial litigation.
The Court has, for the time being, found a prima facie case in Himalaya's favour and granted an ad-interim injunction against the defendants. The defendants are yet to place their complete defence on record, pleadings are to be completed, and the parties have meanwhile been referred to mediation.
Therefore, the Court has not finally adjudicated liability for infringement, passing off or copyright infringement. Its present findings are preliminary and operate for purposes of interim protection.
On the likelihood of consumer confusion, the Court recorded:
“Beyond what has been submitted by learned senior counsel for the plaintiffs, this court is of the prima-facie view that the name, packaging, and colour combination of the defendants’ products correspond so closely to the plaintiffs’ products that an ordinary person, of average intelligence, and imperfect recollection is likely to be mislead into confusing one product for the other.”
On Himalaya satisfying the requirements for interim protection, the Court held:
“Based on a preliminary appreciation of the matter, this court is of the view that the plaintiffs have succeeded in making-out a prima-facie case in its favour; that the balance of convenience also lies in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants; and it would appear that irreparable loss and injury would be caused to the plaintiffs if the interim injunction as prayed-for is not granted.”
The operative injunction was then passed in the following terms:
“Accordingly, an ad-interim order of injunction is passed in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in terms of prayer 41 (a), (b), (c), (d) and (e) as extracted above, till the next date of hearing.”
Finally, while referring the dispute for settlement, the Court ordered that the mediation would be time-bound and recorded:
“The mediation shall be time bound, to be concluded within 03 weeks.Awaiting the outcome of mediation, list on 30th September 2026.”
To view the official order, click the link below:
https://medicaldialogues.in/pdf_upload/2026/08/27/liverheal-696124-378539.pdf
