Delhi HC Restrains Wipro From The Sale Of Female Intimate Wash Bearing The 'Evecare' Trademark

In a recent legal development, the Delhi High Court issued a restraining order against Wipro Enterprises, prohibiting them from engaging in the production, sale, or promotion of their female intimate wash or any other merchandise bearing the 'Evecare' trademark. The order came in response to a lawsuit filed by Himalaya, claiming Wipro of infringing on their trademark rights.

Justice Amit Bansal, upon reviewing the case, acknowledged that Himalaya had been using the marks 'Evecare' and 'Evecare Forte' for their uterine tonic for nearly 24 years, while Wipro introduced their product only in 2021. The Court noted that Wipro's use of an identical mark could potentially harm Himalaya's goodwill and reputation, as well as create confusion and deception in the market.

Himalaya approached the High Court, asserting that their product specifically targeted issues related to irregular menstrual cycles, dysmenorrhea, and long-term safety. They claimed to have obtained the 'Evecare' trademark in 1997 and consistently used it since 1998. However, it wasn't until November 2022 that they became aware of Wipro's registration of the same mark. Despite issuing a cease-and-desist order to Wipro, the plaintiff's demands were disregarded.

Wipro defended its position by stating that in November 2020, it entered the female hygiene segment and conceived the idea of launching an intimate hygiene wash for women. Given the product's focus on feminine hygiene, they chose the 'Evecare' mark to convey a sense of protection and care associated with their brand. Wipro also highlighted that their trademark and Himalaya's trademark were registered under different classes. While Himalaya's products fell under the class covering medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations, Wipro's fell under cosmetic products.

Justice Bansal carefully evaluated the case and determined that Wipro had failed to provide a credible explanation for adopting an identical trademark. The court found that Wipro's adoption of the plaintiffs' registered trademark was not done in good faith and constituted a misrepresentation. Moreover, the court recognized that the two products were similar and targeted the same group of consumers, namely women. This led to a likelihood of confusion, particularly on third-party e-commerce platforms like 'Amazon', 'Netmeds', and 'TATA 1mg', where both the plaintiffs' and the defendants' products appeared in search results for 'EVECARE'.

The Delhi HC dismissed the contention that the use of Himalaya's house mark, 'Himalaya', alongside the trademark 'EVECARE', would eliminate confusion. In the current digital age, where most purchases are made online, consumers primarily rely on trademarks during their search on e-commerce platforms. Thus, the court emphasized that the house mark would have limited relevance in such cases. After considering these factors, the court concluded that a prima facie case of passing off was established in favor of Himalaya. It further determined that granting an injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm not only to the plaintiff but also to the general public. The balance of convenience also favored Himalaya in this matter.