{"id":10554,"date":"2025-10-24T10:58:59","date_gmt":"2025-10-24T10:58:59","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=10554"},"modified":"2025-10-24T11:02:42","modified_gmt":"2025-10-24T11:02:42","slug":"trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Distinctiveness and the Doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 id=\"introduction\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction_Wow_Momo_Foods_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Wow_Burger_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Infringement_Case\"><\/span>Introduction: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The case of <strong>Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger &amp; Anr.<\/strong> presented before the Delhi High Court concerned a trademark dispute between two entities in the food business. The appellant, Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., is a renowned food chain known for its trademarks <strong>WOW MOMO<\/strong>, <strong>WOW DIMSUMS<\/strong>, and <strong>WOW MOMO INSTANT<\/strong>. These marks, registered under various classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, have become synonymous with fast food, particularly momos and related culinary products.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Introduction_Wow_Momo_Foods_Pvt_Ltd_Vs_Wow_Burger_%E2%80%93_Trademark_Infringement_Case\" >Introduction: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#The_Core_Dispute\" >The Core Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Legal_Reasoning_and_Analysis\" >Legal Reasoning and Analysis<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Distinctiveness_of_the_%E2%80%9CWOW%E2%80%9D_Element\" >Distinctiveness of the &#8220;WOW&#8221; Element<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Idea_Infringement_and_Creativity\" >Idea Infringement and Creativity<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Key_Judicial_Precedents_Cited\" >Key Judicial Precedents Cited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Family_of_Marks_Doctrine\" >Family of Marks Doctrine<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Initial_Interest_Confusion\" >Initial Interest Confusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Judicial_Reasoning_and_Decision\" >Judicial Reasoning and Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Law_Settled\" >Law Settled<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Final_Decision\" >Final Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-distinctiveness-and-the-doctrine-of-initial-interest-confusion\/#Written_By\" >Written By<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p>The appellant had adopted and used the word and device marks containing \u201cWOW\u201d since 2008. It expanded operations to over 30 cities with more than 600 outlets across India, achieving a turnover exceeding \u20b9450 crores in 2023\u20132024 and maintaining an online presence through its domain <strong>wow.wowmomo.com<\/strong>, registered in 2013.<\/p>\n<p>In December 2024, the appellant discovered that the respondent, Wow Burger, was preparing to launch food services in India under the mark <strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>. The appellant claimed that this infringed its registered marks and amounted to passing off. Consequently, a suit (<strong>CS (COMM) 1161\/2024<\/strong>) was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction. However, by order dated 12 September 2025, the learned Single Judge refused the injunction, leading to this appeal.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"procedural-history\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appellant\u2019s interlocutory injunction application (<strong>IA 48983\/2024<\/strong>) was dismissed by the Single Judge, who held that \u201cWOW\u201d is a common English word and cannot be monopolized. It was noted that \u201cWOW\u201d was not registered standalone and that some registrations carried disclaimers disallowing exclusivity over individual words.<\/p>\n<p>Dissatisfied, Wow Momo filed an appeal under <strong>Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act<\/strong> before a Division Bench. Despite service of notice, the respondents did not appear. The Division Bench decided the appeal based on the appellant\u2019s submissions.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"core-dispute\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Core_Dispute\"><\/span>The Core Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The central issue was whether the respondent\u2019s mark <strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong> infringed the appellant\u2019s registered marks <strong>WOW MOMO<\/strong>, <strong>WOW MOMO INSTANT<\/strong>, and <strong>WOW DIMSUMS<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>The appellant argued that its registrations granted an exclusive right under <strong>Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/strong>.<\/li>\n<li>The respondent\u2019s use of \u201cWOW\u201d with another food item would cause confusion and association.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p>Although unrepresented, the Single Judge\u2019s reasoning that \u201cWOW\u201d was common and not protectable was the principal issue on appeal.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"legal-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Reasoning_and_Analysis\"><\/span>Legal Reasoning and Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench examined key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, including Sections <strong>9, 17, 28, 29, and 30<\/strong>. It clarified that under Section 29(2)(b), infringement arises when a registered mark is similar to another used for similar goods, causing confusion among consumers.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"distinctiveness-of-wow\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Distinctiveness_of_the_%E2%80%9CWOW%E2%80%9D_Element\"><\/span>Distinctiveness of the &#8220;WOW&#8221; Element<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court observed that while \u201cWOW\u201d is a common exclamation, the marks <strong>WOW MOMO<\/strong> and <strong>WOW DIMSUMS<\/strong> had acquired a distinctive and unique identity. The combination of an exclamation with a food item formed a distinctive composite mark.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"idea-infringement\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Idea_Infringement_and_Creativity\"><\/span>Idea Infringement and Creativity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court held that though a common word may not be protectable alone, the inventive idea of pairing \u201cWOW\u201d with food items was unique to the appellant. The respondents\u2019 similar structure (WOW BURGER) suggested intent to trade upon the appellant\u2019s brand identity.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"key-precedents\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Judicial_Precedents_Cited\"><\/span>Key Judicial Precedents Cited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case<\/th>\n<th>Principle<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/em>, AIR 1965 SC 980<\/td>\n<td>Distinction between infringement and passing off.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal &amp; Co.<\/em>, (1969) 2 SCC 131<\/td>\n<td>Emphasis on essential features and phonetic similarity.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/em>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701<\/td>\n<td>Composite marks to be compared as a whole.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td><em>Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd.<\/em>, 1990 Supp SCC 727<\/td>\n<td>Appellate limits in interlocutory injunctions.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h3 id=\"family-of-marks\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Family_of_Marks_Doctrine\"><\/span>Family of Marks Doctrine<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Bench applied the <strong>family of marks doctrine<\/strong>, stating that when a company owns multiple marks sharing a common prefix (e.g., WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS), they acquire collective distinctiveness. Another mark with the same prefix in the same trade area naturally causes confusion.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"initial-interest-confusion\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Initial_Interest_Confusion\"><\/span>Initial Interest Confusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court applied the <strong>initial interest confusion test<\/strong>, holding that consumers encountering \u201cWOW BURGER\u201d might assume association with \u201cWOW MOMO.\u201d<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"judicial-reasoning\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Reasoning_and_Decision\"><\/span>Judicial Reasoning and Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench held that the Single Judge erred in treating \u201cWOW\u201d as descriptive. It emphasized that while \u201cWOW\u201d alone might be common, its combination with food items formed a distinctive mark. The respondents\u2019 mark infringed under <strong>Section 29(2)(b)<\/strong>.<\/p>\n<p>The Bench concluded that pairing an exclamation with a product name imparts uniqueness deserving protection. The appeal was allowed, and the respondents were restrained from using \u201cWOW BURGER\u201d or any deceptively similar mark.<\/p>\n<h2 id=\"law-settled\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Law_Settled\"><\/span>Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Composite Marks:<\/strong> Must be assessed as a whole, not dissected.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Idea Infringement:<\/strong> Creative combinations of common words can be protected.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Family of Marks Doctrine:<\/strong> Similar prefixes or suffixes in related marks gain broader protection.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Initial Interest Confusion:<\/strong> Even temporary consumer confusion constitutes infringement.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Distinctiveness of Exclamatory Marks:<\/strong> Expressions like \u201cWOW\u201d can acquire brand distinctiveness.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 id=\"final-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision\"><\/span>Final Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Single Judge\u2019s judgment dated 12 September 2025. The respondents were restrained from using \u201cWOW BURGER\u201d or any similar mark likely to cause confusion with the appellant\u2019s brand.<\/p>\n<table>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Title<\/th>\n<td>Wow Momo Foods Private Limited Vs. Wow Burger &amp; Anr.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Case Number<\/th>\n<td>FAO (OS) (COMM) 143\/2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Neutral Citation<\/th>\n<td>2025:DHC:9320-DB<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Date of Decision<\/th>\n<td>16 October 2025<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Court<\/th>\n<td>High Court of Delhi at New Delhi<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<th>Coram<\/th>\n<td>Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon\u2019ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information provided is for public interest and educational purposes. Readers should exercise discretion when interpreting and applying this material, which may reflect subjective interpretations.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"author\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Written_By\"><\/span>Written By<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p><strong>Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman<\/strong>, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction: Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger &#8211; Trademark Infringement Case The case of Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger &amp; Anr. presented before the Delhi High Court concerned a trademark dispute between two entities in the food business. The appellant, Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., is a renowned food chain<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-10554","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10554","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=10554"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/10554\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=10554"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=10554"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=10554"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}