Delhi High Court Upholds Interim Injunction Against Wipro Enterprises in Trademark Dispute Over “EVECARE”

Delhi High Court, in the case of Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors., upheld an interim injunction restraining Wipro from using the mark “EVECARE” for its female hygiene products. The court determined that despite being registered in different trademark classes, the marks of both parties were identical, and their products were closely related in terms of target consumers, leading to a likelihood of confusion.

The dispute arose when Himalaya, which has been using the mark “EVECARE” since 1998 for its ayurvedic medicine aimed at treating menstrual disorders, filed a suit against Wipro. Wipro launched a female intimate hygiene wash under the same name in 2021. Himalaya contended that the mark had garnered goodwill and was associated with their product, whereas Wipro argued that their product was different, being a cosmetic item in Class 3, while Himalaya’s product was a pharmaceutical in Class 5.

The Single Judge had previously granted an injunction, barring Wipro from selling its product under the “EVECARE” mark, based on the claim of passing off. This decision was challenged by Wipro in the present appeal.

The key legal question was whether Wipro's use of the identical trademark “EVECARE” constituted passing off, despite the products being registered in different trademark classes. The court was asked to consider whether the two products, one a cosmetic and the other a pharmaceutical, were sufficiently similar to cause confusion among consumers.

Wipro argued that their product was a cosmetic intimate wash, while Himalaya’s was an ingestible uterine tonic, which should dispel any potential confusion. They also claimed that their mark had been adopted in good faith following a trademark search in Class 3, where no conflicting registrations were found.

Himalaya, on the other hand, emphasized that both products were aimed at women’s reproductive health, sold through similar channels, and often appeared together in online searches, increasing the likelihood of confusion.

The court upheld the Single Judge’s decision, stating that even though the products fell under different classes, they catered to the same group of consumers (women) and were related to female reproductive health. It emphasized that consumers would likely associate both products as coming from the same source due to the identical marks. The court cited the principle from N.R. Dongre & Ors. v. Whirlpool Corporation & Anr., where the rights of prior users were deemed superior to those of registered trademark owners.

Both products targeted women and were aimed at maintaining reproductive health.

The products were sold in similar channels, such as pharmacies and online platforms.

The identical mark “EVECARE” used by both parties was likely to cause confusion among consumers, especially given the sensitive nature of the products, referred to as “hush products.”

The court further rejected Wipro’s argument that the trademark classification should protect its use of the mark, affirming that classification under the Trade Marks Act could not be the sole criterion for determining similarity between goods. It relied on prior case law to establish that related goods could lead to confusion, even if classified separately.

The court dismissed Wipro’s appeal, maintaining the interim injunction on the basis that Wipro’s use of “EVECARE” was likely to cause confusion and amounted to passing off Himalaya’s mark. The court clarified that its findings were prima facie and not a final judgment on the merits of the case.

Decision Date: October 1, 2024

Wipro Enterprises Private Limited v. Himalaya Wellness Company & Ors.