Wow Momo Foods PVT. LTD. v. Wow Burger & ANR.

Summary

Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., established in 2008, is a prominent Indian quick-service restaurant chain specializing in momos and related products. The company claims to have coined the trademark “WOW!” and uses it extensively across various brands like “WOW! MOMO,” “WOW! CHINA,” and “WOW! CHICKEN.” In December 2024, Wow Momo discovered the intended launch of a new food venture under the name “WOW BURGER” by the defendants. Alleging trademark infringement and passing off, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using the mark “WOW BURGER” or any deceptively similar mark.

Issues:

1. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “WOW BURGER” or any deceptively similar mark.
2. Whether the mark “WOW!” has acquired secondary meaning to warrant exclusive rights.

Judgment:

The Delhi High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction. The court held that “WOW” is a common laudatory term and cannot be monopolized by the plaintiff. It was observed that the plaintiff had no standalone registration for the mark “WOW!” and had used “WOW BURGER” only as a menu item until 2018. The court found that the plaintiff’s claim of continuous and extensive use of “WOW BURGER” was misleading, as the current menu did not feature the term “WOW BURGER,” but instead used “Moburg” and “Louder Chicken Burger.” The court concluded that the plaintiff had not established a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off.

Key Findings:

• “WOW” is a common English exclamation and cannot be monopolized as a trademark.
• The plaintiff’s use of “WOW BURGER” was limited to a menu item and ceased in 2018.
• The current menu does not feature “WOW BURGER,” indicating a lack of continuous use.
• The plaintiff’s claim of secondary meaning for “WOW BURGER” was not substantiated.
• The marks “WOW! MOMO” and “WOW BURGER” are not deceptively similar in appearance or overall impression.

Significance:

This judgment highlights the principle that generic or laudatory terms cannot be monopolized as trademarks unless they have acquired distinctiveness through extensive and continuous use. It highlights the importance of having proper trademark registrations and the need for consistent use of marks to establish secondary meaning. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for businesses relying on common words as trademarks without adequate legal protection.