Case Law
S.B.L. Ltd. v. Himalaya Drug Company — "Liv.52" v. "Liv-T" Trademark Case
Ahmedabad, Gujarat
Citation & Court
This dispute produced three Delhi High Court decisions that point in different directions, so the year you cite matters:
- 1997 — S.B.L. Ltd. v. Himalaya Drug Co., Division Bench, decided 15 July 1997, AIR 1998 Del 126 (interim stage). Held for S.B.L.
- 2010 — Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd., single judge, 2010 (43) PTC 739 (Del). Suit dismissed.
- 2013 — Himalaya Drug Company v. S.B.L. Ltd., Division Bench, 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del) (DB). Appeal allowed; held for Himalaya. This is the final word in the litigation.
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
Himalaya Drug Company had used the coined mark "Liv.52" continuously since 1955 (registered since 1957) for a liver-treatment formulation. S.B.L. Ltd. began marketing a similar product under "LIV-T." Himalaya alleged that "LIV" — the dominant, distinctive element of its mark — was being copied.
What the Court Held
1997 (interim). At the interim stage, the Division Bench held that “LIV” — an abbreviation of “liver” used in the names of many liver medicines — was publici juris, and found no visual, phonetic or structural similarity between LIV.52 and LIV-T likely to cause confusion. Himalaya did not get an interim injunction.
2010 (trial). At the final hearing, a single judge dismissed Himalaya's suit, again treating LIV as publici juris and comparing what remained of the marks once LIV was set aside.
2013 (appeal). The Division Bench reversed. It rejected the finding that LIV was generic, holding that S.B.L. had the burden of proving that and had not discharged it, while Himalaya had shown continuous use since 1955 and registration since 1957 without any disclaimer. It also pointed out that S.B.L. had itself applied to register LIV-T. Rather than comparing only the residual parts of the marks, the Court treated LIV, written in isolation, as the essential and prominent feature of Himalaya's mark, and restrained S.B.L. from using LIV-T. S.B.L. remained free to use LIV as part of a single word rather than in isolation.
How to Use This in Your Reply
Cite the 2013 Division Bench decision, 2013 (53) PTC 1 (Del) (DB), when you need authority that the dominant part of a compound mark can be protected even though it is derived from a descriptive word, and that a party alleging genericness must prove it with evidence rather than assertion.
Be aware that the other side can cite the 1997 decision for the opposite proposition — that LIV is publici juris and LIV.52 and LIV-T are not similar. That ruling was made at the interim stage and the dispute was finally decided the other way in 2013, which is the answer to it. Citing “S.B.L. v. Himalaya” without a year invites confusion; always give the year and the citation.
The case sits alongside J.R. Kapoor v. Micronix India, where the Supreme Court held a shared descriptive prefix did not make two marks confusingly similar. The difference lies in the evidence of distinctiveness and in how the shared element is used. For the general test, see Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals.
Key takeaway: The final 2013 Division Bench decision protected LIV, written in isolation, as the essential feature of LIV.52 and restrained LIV-T. The earlier 1997 and 2010 rulings went the other way, so always cite by year.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.