WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. WOW Burger & Anr. — Case Summary

High Court of Delhi at New Delhi — 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 brand identity revolved around the mark “WOW! MOMO,” which it used along with other related marks such as “WOW! CHINA,” “WOW! CHICKEN,” and “WOW! DIMSUM.” The plaintiff claimed that “WOW!” 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 “WOW!” exclusively with its brand.

In December 2024, the plaintiff came across a LinkedIn post about the launch of a new food venture in India under the brand “WOW BURGER.” 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 “WOW BURGER” in the food business.

Procedural Detail

The plaintiff filed a commercial suit in 2024 accompanied by an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 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.

Dispute

The controversy centered around whether the plaintiff could claim exclusive rights over the word “WOW” or “WOW BURGER.” The plaintiff asserted that the defendant’s 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 “WOW” as a trademark in the food industry, and whether the defendant’s use of “WOW BURGER” could be stopped.

Detailed Reasoning

Trademark Portfolio and Registrations

The Court first considered the plaintiff’s trademark portfolio. It observed that the plaintiff did not hold any standalone registration for “WOW” or for “WOW BURGER.” The registrations available were only for composite marks like “WOW! MOMO,” “WOW! CHINA,” and others. Importantly, the Registrar of Trademarks had issued these registrations with disclaimers, clarifying that individual words within the composite marks, such as “WOW,” could not be monopolized. Thus, on record, there was no statutory right available to the plaintiff in the standalone word “WOW.”

Legal Principles — Descriptive/Laudatory Terms and Secondary Meaning

The Court then considered whether the word “WOW” could be monopolized in law. Section 9(1)(b) 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 “secondary meaning.” Section 30(2)(a) 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.

Judicial Authorities Referenced

• Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701 — 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.
• Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., CS (COMM) 611/2023 (11.12.2023) — ordinary English words like “Institute” and “Directors” cannot be monopolized as trademarks.
• Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, CS (COMM) 1099/2024 (22.08.2025) — Delhi High Court refused exclusivity over the word “Yatra,” reiterating that generic or descriptive words require unmistakable secondary meaning to acquire protection.
• Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, FAO(OS) 352/2010 (01.11.2010) — slightly altered descriptive words cannot be monopolized; otherwise dictionary words would be blocked by minor tweaks.
• Standard Ideal Co. v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company, (1910) 27 RPC 789 (Privy Council) — words descriptive of quality like “Standard” cannot be monopolized.

Secondary Meaning Analysis

Applying these authorities, the Court concluded that “WOW” 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.

The plaintiff had argued that “WOW” had acquired secondary meaning due to its long use since 2008. However, the Court found this unconvincing. It referred to PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. EZY Services & Anr., 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 “Glucon-D” noted in Heinz Italia v. Dabur India Ltd., (2007) 6 SCC 1. Since “WOW” 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.

Claim About “WOW BURGER” Use

Another important finding was on the plaintiff’s claim of using “WOW BURGER” since 2009. The Court examined the documents and found that “WOW BURGER” had never been registered and had only been used as a menu item until 2018. Thereafter, the plaintiff replaced it with “Moburg” and “Louder Chicken Burger.” The plaintiff’s own website confirmed that its current brands were “WOW MOMO,” “WOW CHINA,” and “WOW CHICKEN,” with no mention of “WOW BURGER.” Thus, the Court held that the plaintiff had tried to mislead by presenting “WOW BURGER” as its brand when it was not.

Comparison of Competing Marks

Finally, the Court compared the competing marks “WOW! MOMO” and “WOW BURGER.” It reiterated the anti-dissection rule laid down in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, 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 “WOW,” the marks were entirely different in appearance, color scheme, and trade dress. The plaintiff’s branding was yellow, while the defendant’s was red and white. Their menus and products were also marketed differently. Hence, there was no deceptive similarity.

Decision

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the application for interim injunction. It held that the plaintiff had no registration or exclusive right over “WOW” or “WOW BURGER,” that “WOW” was a common laudatory word in the food industry, that “WOW BURGER” was never the plaintiff’s 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.