Justice Tejas Karia grants interim relief to Himalaya Wellness in a trademark dispute over Ayurvedic and wellness products.
Delhi High Court Grants Interim Relief
The Delhi High Court has restrained Greenland Trading Company from using the mark “HIMALAYA” or any deceptively similar mark for Ayurvedic and wellness products. The Court passed the ex parte ad interim order on November 27, 2025. The injunction will continue till March 12, 2026, unless the Court changes it later.
What the Dispute Is About
Himalaya Wellness Company and others approached the court against Greenland Trading Company, a Delhi-based seller of Ayurvedic and wellness products. The plaintiffs said the defendant used the word “HIMALAYA” on similar goods. They also argued that the defendant copied their branding style and trade dress.
According to the plaintiffs, this use could confuse buyers. Consumers may believe the defendant’s products come from, or are connected with, Himalaya Wellness.
Why the Court Intervened
The Court found a prima facie case in favour of Himalaya Wellness. It noted that both sides dealt in similar product categories. They also used similar channels to sell their goods.
The Court observed that the impugned mark closely resembled the plaintiffs’ mark. It said the similarity could mislead ordinary consumers. The risk was higher because the products fell in the health and wellness sector, where public trust matters greatly.
The Court also noted that such use could dilute the plaintiffs’ brand and harm their goodwill.
Himalaya Wellness Relied on Prior Use
Himalaya Wellness argued that it had used the “HIMALAYA” mark for decades across Ayurvedic, pharmaceutical, wellness, and personal care products. It also relied on its goodwill, reputation, and registrations in support of its claim.
The Court accepted that the plaintiffs had shown prior adoption and long-standing use of the mark. This helped establish their proprietary interest in the brand and its associated identity.
Court’s Key Findings
The Delhi High Court noted that the dispute involved identical or closely related goods. It also found similarity in branding and market presence. Because of this, the Court held that confusion among consumers was likely.
The Court further observed that continued use of the impugned mark could weaken the distinctiveness of the plaintiffs’ brand. It also held that monetary compensation alone may not fully repair such harm.
What the Order Says
The Court restrained Greenland Trading Company from manufacturing, selling, offering for sale, advertising, or dealing in goods under the name “HIMALAYA” or any deceptively similar mark. This protection will remain in force until the next date of hearing or until further orders.
Why This Order Matters
This order reinforces core principles of trademark law. Prior use and goodwill give strong legal protection to a brand owner. Courts can step in quickly when identical or deceptively similar marks threaten to confuse consumers.
The ruling also shows that courts place strong emphasis on consumer protection, especially in sectors linked to health and wellness.
Case Details
Case Title: Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors. v. Greenland Trading Company
