%20(1).webp)
Introduction
Trademark disputes often arise from a simple commercial calculation, i.e., retaining enough similarity to benefit from an established brand while introducing minor changes to avoid liability. A recent dispute involving the marks “Liv.52” and “Liv-22” shows this principle clearly. The controversy demonstrates that trademark law protects not merely the exact spelling of a mark, but also its essential and distinctive character in the minds of consumers.
What is the Dispute?
The dispute concerned the use of the mark “Liv-22” for products operating within the same commercial field as Himalaya's landmark product sold under the trademark “Liv.52”. The defendant's mark reproduced the element “LIV” while substituting the numeral “52” with “22”.
The issue: Whether changing the numeral was sufficient to distinguish the competing mark from the established trademark “Liv.52”?
How Courts Assess Trademark Similarity
Trademark infringement is not determined through a side-by-side comparison of individual letters or numbers. Courts instead assess the overall commercial impression created by the marks and examine whether an average consumer is likely to be confused regarding the source of the goods.
Indian trademark jurisprudence has repeatedly emphasized that consumers do not retain every detail of a mark in memory. Rather, they remember its dominant and distinctive feature. The inquiry therefore focuses on the essential part of the mark that performs the source-identifying function.
In cases involving composite marks, one element may acquire greater significance than others. If that dominant element is copied, minor additions or alterations may not be sufficient to avoid infringement.
The Significance of the Element “LIV”
The dispute largely turned on the significance of the word “LIV”. For decades, consumers have associated the mark “Liv.52” with Himalaya's liver-care products. The word “LIV” functions as the principal identifying feature of the mark.
From a consumer's perspective, the numeral following the word may not possess the same source-identifying value as the word itself. Consequently, replacing “52” with “22” does little to alter the overall commercial impression when the dominant feature remains unchanged.
The law recognizes that trademark protection extends beyond exact duplication. A party cannot escape liability merely by making cosmetic modifications while retaining the essential feature that consumers associate with another trader.
Earlier Judicial Recognition of the Mark
The significance of the element “LIV” was not considered in isolation. In Himalaya Drug Company v. SBL Limited (2012), the Delhi High Court examined the strength and distinctiveness of the “LIV” component associated with Himalaya's products.
That decision is frequently cited for the proposition that the unauthorized use of “LIV” in relation to competing products may give rise to infringement concerns. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a particular component of a trademark has acquired distinctiveness through long and extensive use, protection may extend to that component itself.
The Broader Trademark Principle
The dispute serves as a reminder of an important rule of trademark law: a trader cannot appropriate the goodwill of another by making trivial alterations to a well-known mark.
Changing a numeral, punctuation mark, spelling variation, prefix, or suffix will not necessarily create a legally distinct trademark. The decisive question remains whether consumers are likely to associate the impugned mark with the proprietor of the earlier mark.
Trademark law protects consumer perception, not mechanical differences in typography.
Conclusion
The controversy surrounding “Liv-22” and “Liv.52” demonstrates a recurring theme in trademark litigation. Courts focus on the substance of a mark rather than superficial differences. Where the dominant and memorable feature of a trademark is reproduced, minor modifications may provide little defence.
A different number does not necessarily create a different brand. If the essential source-identifying element remains the same, the risk of confusion persists, and trademark law is designed to prevent precisely that outcome.
© All Rights Reserved.
Disclaimer: None of the contents of this post constitute legal advice.