Delhi High Court restrains Healing Pharma over Himalaya trade dress

An ad-interim injunction prevents Healing Pharma from dealing in products bearing trade dress that the Delhi High Court found prima facie likely to confuse consumers with Himalaya’s products.

The Delhi High Court has granted ad-interim protection to Himalaya Global Holdings in a trademark, copyright, and passing-off dispute with Healing Pharma India Private Limited over the branding and packaging of a range of healthcare products.

Justice A. J. Bhambhani issued the order on August 18, 2026, in Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd. & Anr. v. Healing Pharma India Private Limited & Ors., CS(COMM) 892/2026.

The court’s order restrains the defendants on an interim basis in respect of the disputed products and trade dress, after finding that Himalaya had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored the plaintiffs.

Dispute over names and packaging

The dispute concerns Healing Pharma products marketed under the names Liverheal, Liverheal 52, Liverheal DS, Senstone, Braintat, Spermax, Pilefine, and Confidance X.

Himalaya alleged that the defendants had adopted trade dress that copied distinctive elements of its own products, including those marketed under the names Liv.52, Cystone, Mentat, Speman, Pilex, and Confido.

According to the plaintiffs, the similarities extended beyond individual product names to the color combinations, packaging style, and artistic layout used on the products. Himalaya alleged that the conduct amounted to trademark and copyright infringement and passing off.

Court finds prima facie likelihood of confusion

The court made clear that its assessment was preliminary.

After considering the material before it, Justice Bhambhani said the court was of the prima facie view that the names, packaging and color combination of the defendants’ products corresponded so closely with those of the plaintiffs that an ordinary person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection was likely to be misled into confusing one product with the other.

The court consequently found that Himalaya had made out a prima facie case, that the balance of convenience lay in its favor and that failure to grant interim protection appeared likely to cause irreparable loss and injury.

An ad-interim injunction was therefore granted in favor of Himalaya until the next hearing. The order is not a final determination of the underlying infringement, copyright or passing-off claims.

Healing Pharma had already discontinued Liverheal 52

During the hearing, Healing Pharma informed the court that it had discontinued its Liverheal 52 product with effect from November 10, 2025, and was thereafter marketing the product under the name Liverheal.

The statement was taken on record by the court. Healing Pharma also indicated that it was willing to explore an amicable settlement through mediation.

Himalaya agreed, and the court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation & Conciliation Centre. The parties were directed to approach the Mediation Centre on August 24, with the mediation process to be completed within three weeks.

The matter is listed for further consideration on September 30, 2026, pending the outcome of the mediation.

Trade dress at the heart of the dispute

The case is particularly relevant to trademark owners in the pharmaceutical and healthcare sectors because the court’s preliminary assessment focused not simply on the similarity of individual word marks, but on the overall presentation of the competing products.

Himalaya argued that its trade dress had acquired distinctiveness through prior adoption and extensive use, and that Healing Pharma had copied the relevant visual elements across a range of products.

The court’s interim finding that the combination of product names, packaging and colors could lead to consumer confusion underscores the potential importance of overall product presentation in passing-off and trademark disputes.

Interim protection, not a final ruling

The August 18 order does not finally determine whether Healing Pharma infringed Himalaya’s trademark rights or engaged in passing off.

Instead, the court has granted interim protection while the litigation proceeds and the parties explore mediation. The case nevertheless provides an early indication of how the Delhi High Court may approach allegations that a competitor has replicated the overall commercial appearance of established healthcare products. For brand owners, it also highlights the potential value of protecting trade dress and packaging alongside conventional word and device marks.

For now, Himalaya has secured interim protection against the disputed Healing Pharma trade dress. Whether that protection ultimately becomes permanent will depend on the continuing litigation and the outcome of the parties’ mediation.

← Back to News