Protecting Brand Identity: The “Wow Momo” Case And The Importance Of Interim Injunctions

Introduction

The recent case of Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Delicious^[1] highlights the importance of protecting IPR in India’s food and beverage industry. With allegations of trademark infringement, copyright violation, and unfair trade practices, the plaintiff sought legal remedies to safeguard its well-established brand identity. The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction, recognizing the plaintiff’s prima facie case and emphasizing the need to prevent consumer confusion and preserve goodwill.

This article analyses the case and the general framework for granting such injunctions in the following manner:

• The Plaintiff’s Submissions
• The Court’s Decision
• General Legal Framework: Grant of Injunction under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC)

The Plaintiff’s Submissions

• Nature of the Suit and Relief Sought: The plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to restrain the defendant from infringing its trademarks and copyright, and engaging in passing off, unfair trade practices, and unauthorized use of its intellectual property. The plaintiff also requests damages, rendition of accounts, and declaratory relief.
• Adoption and Registration of the Trademark “WOW!” and its Variants: The plaintiff coined and adopted the trademark “WOW!” and its variants, such as “WOW! MOMO,” in 2008 for food-related products and services. These trademarks are registered under Classes 29, 30, and 43, covering the relevant categories for food items and business. Therefore, they are protected under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (TM Act).
• Scope and Scale of the Plaintiff’s Business: Since its inception in 2008, the Plaintiff has expanded to over 600 outlets across 30+ Indian cities, specializing in momos, dumplings, MoBurgs, and Italian cuisine. Operating through dine-in, delivery, and catering formats, the brand has become a leading Quick Service Restaurant (QSR) in India, valued at approximately INR 2500 Crores as of 2022.
• Distinctiveness and Consumer Association with the “WOW!” Brand: The plaintiff asserts that “WOW!” is a dominant and essential feature of its trademarks, closely tied to its brand identity. Extensive advertising and promotion have established “WOW!” as a source identifier exclusive to the plaintiff, enhancing its reputation in the food industry.
• Ownership of Copyright in Artistic Work: The plaintiff owns copyrights in the artistic designs associated with its trademarks, including “WOW! MOMO,” registered under the Copyright Act, 1957. This exclusive right protects the reproduction and use of these designs, strengthening the brand’s legal safeguards.
• Discovery of the Defendant’s Activities and Allegations of Infringement: In December 2024, the plaintiff discovered the defendant operating under the name “WOW! DELICIOUS” with similar trademarks and designs, including the yellow color scheme. The defendant’s branding on outlets, websites, and food delivery platforms like Swiggy and Zomato is alleged to mislead consumers into believing an association with the plaintiff.
• Claims of Mala Fide Intent and Likelihood of Consumer Confusion: The plaintiff argues that the defendant’s adoption of “WOW! DELICIOUS” is mala fide, as the plaintiff’s trademarks were well-known before the defendant’s inception. The similarity in branding risks consumer confusion, unfairly exploiting the plaintiff’s goodwill and potentially damaging its reputation due to compromised food quality perceptions.
• Statutory Violation and Legal Remedies: The defendant’s actions allegedly infringe Section 29 of the TM Act and constitute passing off and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff seeks immediate injunctive relief to prevent further misuse, protect statutory rights, and preserve goodwill and consumer trust.

The Court’s Decision

• Establishment of a Prima Facie Case for Injunction: The Court acknowledged that the plaintiff demonstrated a prima facie case for the grant of an injunction. The Court agreed with the plaintiff’s submissions that the trademarks “WOW!” and “WOW! MOMO” are distinctive and well-established. The defendant’s use of a deceptively similar mark “WOW! DELICIOUS” constitutes an infringement of the plaintiff’s statutory and proprietary rights. The Court noted that the plaintiff is likely to suffer irreparable harm to its goodwill, reputation, and consumer trust if the defendant’s actions are not restrained.
• Irreparable Loss and Balance of Convenience: The Court held that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in the absence of an injunction due to the potential dilution of its trademarks and consumer confusion. Further, the balance of convenience tilted in favor of the plaintiff, as granting relief would protect its established rights without unjustly harming the defendant, who had knowingly adopted the infringing marks.
• Non-Appearance of the Defendant despite Advance Service: The Court noted that advance service of the plaint had been duly completed on the defendant, yet no representative appeared on its behalf. This non-appearance was construed as a lack of contest from the defendant at this stage, further supporting the plaintiff’s plea for immediate relief.
• Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction Granted: Considering the circumstances, the Court granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant, its proprietors, partners, directors, principal officers, servants, distributors, dealers, agents, and all others acting on its behalf from:
  • Selling, offering for sale, or advertising any goods or services under the impugned trademarks.Using any trademark, trade name, or branding deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trademarks “WOW!”, “WOW! MOMO”, and other “WOW!” formative marks and their variants.
  • Engaging in any activity that may lead to infringement or passing off of the plaintiff’s trademarks.

General Legal Framework: Grant of Injunctions under CPC

Types of Injunctions

• Permanent Injunction:
  • Granted at the conclusion of the trial after hearing both parties.Restrains a party forever from doing the specified act.
  • Governed by Sections 30-42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963.
• Temporary/Interim Injunction:
  • Granted temporarily until the disposal of the suit or further court orders.Regulated by Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
  • Can be granted at any stage of the suit.

Grounds for Granting Temporary Injunction (Order XXXIX, Rule 1 CPC)

• Danger to Property: When property in dispute is in danger of being wasted, damaged, alienated, or wrongfully sold.
• Fraudulent Disposal: When the defendant threatens or intends to remove or dispose of property to defraud creditors.
• Injury to Plaintiff: When the defendant threatens to dispossess the plaintiff or otherwise cause injury in relation to the property in dispute.
• Interests of Justice: When the court believes that the interests of justice so require, as held in Manohar Lai v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal.^[2]

Injunction to Restrain Breach of Contract (Order XXXIX, Rule 2 CPC)

• The plaintiff may apply for an injunction to restrain the defendant from committing a breach of contract or other injury, whether compensation is claimed or not.
• The court may grant such injunction on terms as it deems fit (duration, security, etc.).

Conditions for Granting Temporary Injunction (Kashinath Sansthan v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy)^[3]

• Prima Facie Case: The plaintiff must establish a prima facie case to go to trial. In Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, the Court held that a prima facie case means a case that can be established if the evidence presented is believed.^[4] To establish a prima facie case, the plaintiff must show a bona fide dispute and a probability of establishing the right claimed. As per Paidsetti Bhanknarayna v. Paidsetti Rajeshwar Rao, it is sufficient for the plaintiff to show a fair question to raise as to the existence of the alleged right.^[5]
• Balance of Convenience: The balance of convenience must lie in favor of the plaintiff.
• Irreparable Injury: The plaintiff must demonstrate that they will suffer irreparable injury if the injunction is not granted.
• Conduct of the Parties: The court considers the conduct of the parties. In Mandati Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, the court emphasized the importance of fair conduct.^[6]

Ex Parte Ad Interim Injunction (Order XXXIX, Rule 3 CPC)

• General Rule: Notice of the application for injunction must be given to the opposite party.
• Exceptions: The court may grant an injunction without notice if the object of the injunction would be defeated by delay.
• Requirements for Ex Parte Injunction:
  • The court must record reasons for granting the injunction without notice.
  • The applicant must deliver copies of the application, affidavit, plaint, and supporting documents to the opposite party.
• Factors for Granting Ex Parte Injunction (Morgan Stanley v. Kartic Das)^[7]:
  • Irreparable or serious mischief to the plaintiff.Greater injustice from refusing the injunction than granting it.Time at which the plaintiff first had notice of the act complained of.Lack of acquiescence by the plaintiff.The good faith of the applicant.Limited duration of the injunction.
  • General principles (prima facie case, balance of convenience, irreparable loss).

Conclusion

In the Wow Momo case, the Delhi High Court reinforced the critical role of interim injunctions in safeguarding intellectual property rights. By recognizing the plaintiff’s prima facie case, irreparable harm, and balance of convenience, the court protected established trademarks from misuse and consumer confusion. This case illustrates the robust judicial approach towards IP infringement in competitive industries like food and beverages, emphasizing swift and decisive remedies. The interplay of statutory rights and equitable principles ensures not only brand protection but also fair market practices, serving as a deterrent against mala fide actions by competitors.

^[1] https://dhcappl.nic.in/dhcorderportal/GetOrder.do?ID=592/2024/337991751734332689805_5133_11102024.pdf

^[2] Manohar Lai v. Rai Bahadur Rao Raja Seth Hiralal, AIR 1962 SC 527.

^[3] Kashinath Sansthan v. Srimad Sudhindra Thirtha Swamy, AIR 2010 SC 296.

^[4] Martin Burn Ltd. v. R.N. Banerjee, AIR 1958 SC 79.

^[5] Paidsetti Bhanknarayna v. Paidsetti Rajeshwar Rao, AIR 1999 Ori 92.

^[6] Mandati Ranganna v. T. Ramachandra, AIR 2008 SC 2291.

^[7] Morgan Stanley v. Kartic Das, (1994) 4 SCC 225.

King Stubb & Kasiva,
Advocates & Attorneys

Click Here to Get in Touch

New Delhi | Mumbai | Bangalore | Chennai | Hyderabad | Mangalore | Pune | Kochi
Tel: +91 11 41032969 | Email: info@ksandk.com