Himalaya Wellness and Himalaya Global Holdings sue Himalaya Nutravedics over its name; the company will contest
The suit seeks injunctions, a corporate name change and ₹2.00 crore in damages. HNIL's market cap is about ₹108 Cr; the first court listing was expected on October 5.
₹122.60
Oct 1, 2026 — latest session in the data
MICRO-CAP
by market cap ≈ ₹108.2 Cr
₹2.00 Cr
₹2,00,01,000 as valued by the plaintiffs
₹111–₹122.9
low Oct 1 · high Sep 30
Oct 5, 2026
expected, per the disclosure; no order passed so far
On Sunday evening, October 4, Himalaya Nutravedics India Ltd told BSE's SME platform that it has been sued. Himalaya Global Holdings Ltd., a Cayman Islands company, and M/s. Himalaya Wellness Company, a registered partnership based in Makali, Bengaluru, have filed a commercial suit against it before the Additional District and Sessions Judge (Dedicated Commercial Court), Bengaluru Rural, alleging infringement of their registered trade mark "HIMALAYA" and passing off. The reliefs sought go well beyond money: alongside damages of ₹2,00,01,000 (about ₹2.00 crore), the plaintiffs want permanent injunctions against the company dealing in any goods under the "HIMALAYA NUTRAVEDICS" or "HIMALAYA" marks — and a direction that the company apply to the Registrar of Companies to remove the word "HIMALAYA" from its own corporate name.
What the plaintiffs are asking the court to do
Trademark infringement and passing-off suit disclosed under Regulation 30
The plaintiffs allege that the company's use of "HIMALAYA NUTRAVEDICS" on its goods, and of "HIMALAYA" in its corporate name, infringes their registered trade mark and amounts to passing off — asserting that the company operates in the pharmaceutical, nutraceutical and Ayurvedic segment, which overlaps with their business, that the adoption is dishonest, and that it has caused actual confusion in the market. The suit was e-filed on October 2 and physically filed on October 3, 2026, and carries Filing/Registration No. F.R. No. 437 of 2026; the Commercial Original Suit number is yet to be assigned. The company says it received the plaint by email from the plaintiffs' advocates on October 3 at 5:10 P.M. IST, and that as on the date of the disclosure no summons had been served and no order had been passed.
Read:For a company whose products and corporate identity both carry the word "HIMALAYA", the non-monetary reliefs are the substantive ones: an injunction on the mark plus a forced corporate name change would reach the brand under which it sells everything. That is the company's own reading too — it classified the matter as material precisely because the reliefs "relate to the Company's corporate name and the mark under which it sells its products." The company denies the allegations strongly and will contest the suit.
Regulation 30 disclosure, BSE, Oct 4 2026The full list of reliefs in the disclosure: permanent injunctions restraining use of "HIMALAYA NUTRAVEDICS", "HIMALAYA" or any deceptively similar mark and of any trading name containing "HIMALAYA"; the direction to apply to the Registrar of Companies for a name change; damages; delivery up of goods and material bearing the impugned mark for erasure or destruction; rendition of accounts of profits from June 16, 2022 until disposal of the suit; and costs. Alongside the plaint, the plaintiffs filed an application seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation and three applications seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunctions — that is, interim restraints on the mark and name that the court could grant pending the suit, before hearing the company. Whether any such interim order issues at the early listings is the near-term variable.
There is procedural history. The plaintiffs had earlier instituted a suit on the same subject matter before the High Court of Delhi — CS(COMM) No. 1061/2026. By an order dated September 28, 2026, the Delhi High Court ordered the return of the plaint, with liberty to the plaintiffs to present it before the appropriate forum; the Bengaluru Rural suit was filed thereafter. The disclosure does not state the grounds for the return, so this reads as a change of forum rather than any finding on the merits — no court has ruled on the allegations.
The Company denies the allegations strongly and will contest the suit.
— Regulation 30 disclosure to BSE, October 4, 2026
What ₹2.00 crore does and does not capture
Against a market capitalisation of roughly ₹108.2 crore, the quantified claim of ₹2,00,01,000 — about ₹2.00 crore, as valued by the plaintiffs — works out to under 2% of the company's market value. But the company itself says the financial implications "are not ascertainable at this stage": the rendition of accounts of profits is unquantified, and the suit's central reliefs — losing the mark on its goods and the word "HIMALAYA" in its corporate name — are not expressed in rupees at all. The disclosure also notes the litigation is against the company alone; the Chairman & Managing Director is named in the cause title only as the person representing the company, not in his individual capacity.
Delhi High Court orders the return of the plaint in CS(COMM) No. 1061/2026, with liberty to present it before the appropriate forum.
Suit e-filed before the Dedicated Commercial Court, Bengaluru Rural (F.R. No. 437 of 2026).
Physical filing; the company receives the plaint by email from the plaintiffs' advocates at 5:10 P.M. IST.
Regulation 30 disclosure reaches BSE at 17:10 IST on Sunday — after market close.
Expected first listing before the court, per the plaintiffs' advocates; no summons served and no order passed as of the disclosure.
On price: there is no market reaction to report yet. The disclosure reached the exchange on a Sunday evening, and the daily price series available here ends on October 1 — the stock last closed at ₹122.60 on volume of 223,200 shares, after ₹116.80 on September 30. The adjusted 52-week high of ₹122.9 (September 30) and low of ₹111 (October 1) sit just two sessions apart, which indicates a very recently listed stock with an extremely short trading history — a further reason to treat the first post-disclosure sessions with caution. Separately, the company's trading window for insiders has been closed since October 1 and stays closed until 48 hours after the results for the quarter and half-year ended September 30, 2026 are declared.
The filings that would change this picture
Interim orders
The plaintiffs have asked for ex-parte ad-interim injunctions on the mark and the name. The company has committed to disclose any ad-interim, interim or final order, for or against it, until the litigation concludes.
Summons and suit number
As of the disclosure no summons had been served and the Commercial Original Suit number was yet to be assigned — the next status update will show whether the October 5 listing happened.
Settlement terms, if any
The company has said that in the event of a settlement it will disclose the terms, any compensation paid, and the impact on its financial position.
H1 FY27 results
The trading window is closed until 48 hours after results for the quarter and half-year ended September 30, 2026 — the first scheduled look at the financials behind the ₹108 Cr market cap.
The disclosure frames the dispute cleanly: two plaintiffs who own the "HIMALAYA" registered trade mark are asking a Bengaluru Rural commercial court to stop a listed micro-cap from using that word on its goods and in its own corporate name, with ₹2.00 crore in quantified damages and an unquantified account of profits from June 2022 attached. The company classifies the matter as material, denies the allegations strongly, and says it will take all appropriate steps to defend its rights.
Nothing has been decided — no summons served, no order passed as of the filing. For a stock with two sessions of trading history and a ₹108 crore market capitalisation, the interim-injunction applications are the item to track: the company's own disclosure obligations mean the next material development should arrive as a BSE filing rather than as a rumour.
Informational and educational content only. Not investment advice.