{"id":8696,"date":"2025-09-15T12:33:39","date_gmt":"2025-09-15T12:33:39","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=8696"},"modified":"2025-09-15T12:39:33","modified_gmt":"2025-09-15T12:39:33","slug":"trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/","title":{"rendered":"Trademark Law and the Limits of Exclusivity over Laudatory Words"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"container\" role=\"main\" aria-labelledby=\"case-title\">\n<h2 id=\"case-title\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"WOW_Momo_Foods_Pvt_Ltd_v_WOW_Burger_Anr_%E2%80%94_Case_Summary\"><\/span>WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger &amp; Anr. \u2014 Case Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p class=\"muted\">High Court of Delhi at New Delhi \u2014 Order dated <strong>12 September 2025<\/strong><\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#WOW_Momo_Foods_Pvt_Ltd_v_WOW_Burger_Anr_%E2%80%94_Case_Summary\" >WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger &amp; Anr. \u2014 Case Summary<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Procedural_Detail\" >Procedural Detail<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Dispute\" >Dispute<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Trademark_Portfolio_and_Registrations\" >Trademark Portfolio and Registrations<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Legal_Principles_%E2%80%94_DescriptiveLaudatory_Terms_and_Secondary_Meaning\" >Legal Principles \u2014 Descriptive\/Laudatory Terms and Secondary Meaning<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Judicial_Authorities_Referenced\" >Judicial Authorities Referenced<\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Secondary_Meaning_Analysis\" >Secondary Meaning Analysis<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Claim_About_%E2%80%9CWOW_BURGER%E2%80%9D_Use\" >Claim About \u201cWOW BURGER\u201d Use<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/trademark-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Comparison_of_Competing_Marks\" >Comparison of Competing Marks<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/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-law-and-the-limits-of-exclusivity-over-laudatory-words\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>WOW Momo Foods Private Limited<\/strong> began operations in 2008 in Kolkata and gradually grew into a well-known food business with more than 600 outlets across India. Its core brand identity revolved around the mark \u201c<strong>WOW! MOMO<\/strong>,\u201d which it used along with other related marks such as \u201c<strong>WOW! CHINA<\/strong>,\u201d \u201c<strong>WOW! CHICKEN<\/strong>,\u201d and \u201c<strong>WOW! DIMSUM<\/strong>.\u201d The plaintiff claimed that \u201c<strong>WOW!<\/strong>\u201d itself was the essential and distinctive feature of all its trademarks. It relied on its continuous commercial use, significant turnover, high promotional expenses, and strong social media presence to argue that consumers identified the word \u201c<strong>WOW!<\/strong>\u201d exclusively with its brand.<\/p>\n<p>In December 2024, the plaintiff came across a LinkedIn post about the launch of a new food venture in India under the brand \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>.\u201d The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had slavishly copied the essential feature of its mark and was attempting to ride upon its goodwill. Claiming infringement of its trademarks and passing off, the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from using \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d in the food business.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_Detail\"><\/span>Procedural Detail<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The plaintiff filed a commercial suit in 2024 accompanied by an application under <em>Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908<\/em>, asking for an interim injunction. The matter was listed, notice was issued, but the defendants failed to appear despite service. Consequently, the right of the defendants to file a written statement was closed.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dispute\"><\/span>Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The controversy centered around whether the plaintiff could claim exclusive rights over the word \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d or \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>.\u201d The plaintiff asserted that the defendant\u2019s mark was deceptively similar to its own and amounted to trademark infringement and passing off. The question before the Court was whether the plaintiff had any legal basis to monopolize \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d as a trademark in the food industry, and whether the defendant\u2019s use of \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d could be stopped.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Trademark_Portfolio_and_Registrations\"><\/span>Trademark Portfolio and Registrations<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court first considered the plaintiff\u2019s trademark portfolio. It observed that the plaintiff did not hold any standalone registration for \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d or for \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>.\u201d The registrations available were only for composite marks like \u201c<strong>WOW! MOMO<\/strong>,\u201d \u201c<strong>WOW! CHINA<\/strong>,\u201d and others. Importantly, the Registrar of Trademarks had issued these registrations with disclaimers, clarifying that individual words within the composite marks, such as \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>,\u201d could not be monopolized. Thus, on record, there was no statutory right available to the plaintiff in the standalone word \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>.\u201d<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Legal_Principles_%E2%80%94_DescriptiveLaudatory_Terms_and_Secondary_Meaning\"><\/span>Legal Principles \u2014 Descriptive\/Laudatory Terms and Secondary Meaning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Court then considered whether the word \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d could be monopolized in law. <strong>Section 9(1)(b)<\/strong> of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 prohibits registration of marks which are descriptive, laudatory, or commonly used. Such terms can only acquire protection if they gain distinctiveness or \u201csecondary meaning.\u201d <strong>Section 30(2)(a)<\/strong> of the Act also makes it clear that even if such words are registered, third parties can use them honestly to describe the nature or quality of goods or services.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Judicial_Authorities_Referenced\"><\/span>Judicial Authorities Referenced<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<ul class=\"fact-list\">\n<li><strong>Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra<\/strong>, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701 \u2014 the Supreme Court held that generic or laudatory terms used in a trade cannot be monopolized even if they form part of a registered trademark. Composite marks must be compared as a whole and common elements cannot be cherry-picked.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd.<\/strong>, CS (COMM) 611\/2023 (11.12.2023) \u2014 ordinary English words like \u201cInstitute\u201d and \u201cDirectors\u201d cannot be monopolized as trademarks.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited<\/strong>, CS (COMM) 1099\/2024 (22.08.2025) \u2014 Delhi High Court refused exclusivity over the word \u201cYatra,\u201d reiterating that generic or descriptive words require unmistakable secondary meaning to acquire protection.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited<\/strong>, FAO(OS) 352\/2010 (01.11.2010) \u2014 slightly altered descriptive words cannot be monopolized; otherwise dictionary words would be blocked by minor tweaks.<\/li>\n<li><strong>Standard Ideal Co. v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company<\/strong>, (1910) 27 RPC 789 (Privy Council) \u2014 words descriptive of quality like \u201cStandard\u201d cannot be monopolized.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Secondary_Meaning_Analysis\"><\/span>Secondary Meaning Analysis<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Applying these authorities, the Court concluded that \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d is merely a laudatory exclamation, widely used in the food industry to express delight at taste or quality. As such, it lacks distinctiveness and cannot be reserved for the plaintiff.<\/p>\n<p>The plaintiff had argued that \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d had acquired secondary meaning due to its long use since 2008. However, the Court found this unconvincing. It referred to <strong>PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. EZY Services &amp; Anr.<\/strong>, IA 8084\/2019 in CS(COMM) 292\/2019 (15.04.2021), which held that secondary meaning cannot be assumed and requires many decades of uninterrupted use, such as the 60-year use of \u201cGlucon-D\u201d noted in <strong>Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd.<\/strong>, (2007) 6 SCC 1. Since \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d had only been in use for about 16 years and was already used by many other businesses, the Court held that it had not acquired secondary meaning.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Claim_About_%E2%80%9CWOW_BURGER%E2%80%9D_Use\"><\/span>Claim About \u201cWOW BURGER\u201d Use<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Another important finding was on the plaintiff\u2019s claim of using \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d since 2009. The Court examined the documents and found that \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d had never been registered and had only been used as a menu item until 2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff replaced it with \u201cMoburg\u201d and \u201cLouder Chicken Burger.\u201d The plaintiff\u2019s own website confirmed that its current brands were \u201c<strong>WOW MOMO<\/strong>,\u201d \u201c<strong>WOW CHINA<\/strong>,\u201d and \u201c<strong>WOW CHICKEN<\/strong>,\u201d with no mention of \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>.\u201d Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff had tried to mislead by presenting \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d as its brand when it was not.<\/p>\n<h3><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Comparison_of_Competing_Marks\"><\/span>Comparison of Competing Marks<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Finally, the Court compared the competing marks \u201c<strong>WOW! MOMO<\/strong>\u201d and \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>.\u201d It reiterated the anti-dissection rule laid down in <strong>Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories<\/strong>, AIR 1965 SC 980, which requires marks to be compared as a whole from the perspective of an average consumer. The Court found that apart from the shared use of \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>,\u201d the marks were entirely different in appearance, color scheme, and trade dress. The plaintiff\u2019s branding was yellow, while the defendant\u2019s was red and white. Their menus and products were also marketed differently. Hence, there was no deceptive similarity.<\/p>\n<h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The High Court of Delhi dismissed the application for interim injunction. It held that the plaintiff had no registration or exclusive right over \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d or \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>,\u201d that \u201c<strong>WOW<\/strong>\u201d was a common laudatory word in the food industry, that \u201c<strong>WOW BURGER<\/strong>\u201d was never the plaintiff\u2019s brand, and that the marks were not deceptively similar. The Court also observed that the plaintiff attempted to monopolize a dictionary word, which is not permissible. The findings were limited to the interim stage, and the suit was directed to proceed to trial.<\/p>\n<div class=\"meta\" aria-label=\"Case metadata\">\n<p><strong>Case Title:<\/strong> WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. VS. WOW Burger &amp; Anr.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Case Number:<\/strong> CS(COMM) 1161\/2024<\/p>\n<p><strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:8044<\/p>\n<p><strong>Court:<\/strong> <a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court of Delhi<\/a> at New Delhi<\/p>\n<p><strong>Date of Order:<\/strong> 12 September 2025<\/p>\n<p><strong>Hon&#8217;ble Judge:<\/strong> Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<div class=\"disclaimer\">\n<p><strong>Disclaimer:<\/strong> The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.<\/p>\n<p class=\"author\"><b>Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman,<\/b> IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger &amp; Anr. \u2014 Case Summary High Court of Delhi at New Delhi \u2014 Order dated 12 September 2025 Facts WOW Momo Foods Private Limited began operations in 2008 in Kolkata and gradually grew into a well-known food business with more than 600 outlets across India. Its core<\/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":[28],"class_list":{"0":"post-8696","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-top-news"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8696","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=8696"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8696\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8696"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8696"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8696"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}