The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla, delivered a significant judgment on 16 October 2025 in Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr., reversing the single judge’s decision and granting interim injunction in favour of Wow Momo Foods.
The Single Judge had dismissed the interim injunction application on 12 September 2025, primarily holding that “WOW” was a laudatory English word, cannot be monopolised and that the appellant lacked registration for “WOW” as a standalone mark.
Division Bench Analysis and Reasoning
Fundamental Distinction Between Infringement and Passing Off
The Division Bench identified a critical flaw in the single judge’s approach that the conflation of infringement and passing off considerations. Drawing extensively from Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, the court emphasized that infringement analysis requires mark-to-mark comparison, where added features like differences in get-up, colour, or appearance become irrelevant if the marks are deceptively similar.
The court clarified that while passing off requires proof that defendant’s goods are being passed off as plaintiff’s, infringement is a statutory remedy focusing solely on whether defendant’s mark creates likelihood of confusion with plaintiff’s registered mark.
Anti-Dissection Rule and Dominant Feature Analysis
While reaffirming the anti-dissection rule requiring marks to be compared as wholes, the Division Bench clarified that identifying dominant features is permissible as a preliminary analytical step. Citing K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co. and recent Supreme Court ruling in Pernod Ricard, the court emphasized that dominant feature analysis complements rather than contradicts the anti-dissection principle.
The court determined that “WOW” constituted the dominant and essential feature in both WOW MOMO and WOW BURGER, as the suffixes merely identified the specific food items.
Consumer Confusion and Initial Interest Test
Applying the established principle of assessing confusion from the perspective of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the court held it was “obvious” that such a consumer familiar with WOW MOMO would presume an association when encountering WOW BURGER.
The court applied the “initial interest confusion” test, noting that even if subsequent enlightenment occurs, the initial confusion constitutes infringement that cannot be undone.
Distinctive Nature of Composite Marks
The court made a crucial distinction regarding the word “WOW” while acknowledging it as a common English exclamation, the Division Bench held that when combined with food item names, it becomes inventive and distinctive. The judgment emphasized that “WOW” is not an adjective and therefore cannot be said to be merely descriptive of the goods.
The court observed: “The very idea of combining the exclamation ‘WOW’ with the food item being sold by the appellant is itself distinctive. The expressions WOW MOMO or WOW DIMSUMS, by itself, do not make any etymological sense, for the simple reason that WOW is not an adjective.
“Idea Infringement” Concept
The Division Bench introduced the concept of “idea infringement,” holding that the respondent had borrowed the appellant’s distinctive idea of combining an exclamatory term with food items to convey superior quality. This replication of the conceptual framework underlying the appellant’s marks constituted infringement even if the specific food items differed.
The “Family of Marks” Doctrine Robustly Applied
The Division Bench extensively relied on Modi-Mundipharma (P) Ltd v. Speciality Meditech (P) Ltd to establish that the family of marks concept applies equally to infringement actions, not just passing off. The court held that when an entity possesses multiple registered trademarks with a common prefix or suffix, any third party mark containing the same element for similar goods could result in likelihood of confusion under Section 29(2) of the Trade Marks Act.
In this case, Wow Momo’s portfolio of marks; WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS, WOW MOMO INSTANT constituted a family of marks with “WOW” as the common dominant prefix, which had acquired distinctiveness through consistent use.
Treatment of Disclaimers
The Division Bench clarified that disclaimers in trademark registrations do not affect infringement analysis when comparing composite marks as wholes. Out of 25 registered marks, disclaimers applied to only five, and could not affect the appellant’s rights in respect of other registrations.
Critical Analysis of Single Judge’s Errors
The Division Bench identified several fundamental errors in the single judge’s approach:
- Conflation of legal tests: Mixing infringement and passing off considerations
- Improper dissection: While invoking anti-dissection rule, the single judge herself dissected the marks to analyse “WOW” standalone
- Misplaced emphasis: Focusing on whether “WOW” alone was distinctive rather than the composite marks’ distinctiveness
- Irrelevant considerations: Emphasizing device mark differences, menu variations, and product specifications irrelevant to word mark infringement analysis
Conclusion
The Division Bench quashed the single judge’s order and granted interim injunction restraining defendants from using “WOW BURGER” or any mark identical or deceptively similar to plaintiff’s “WOW! MOMO” and other “WOW” formative trademarks pending final disposal.
This judgment represents a watershed moment in Indian trademark jurisprudence for several reasons. The decision robustly applies the family of marks doctrine to infringement analysis, providing stronger protection for brand owners who systematically develop mark portfolios with common elements. It provides clear guidance on distinguishing infringement from passing off analysis, emphasizing that mark-to-mark comparison is determinative for infringement regardless of surrounding commercial features. The judgment’s emphasis on “idea infringement” and distinctive conceptual frameworks may influence future trademark strategy and enforcement across industries.
Authored by: Ms. Manya Jain
Leave a Reply