Wow Momo Foods Private Limited Vs. Wow Burger

Trademark Distinctiveness and the Doctrine of Initial Interest Confusion

Introduction :  The case of Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Wow Burger & Anr. presented before the Delhi High Court concerned a trademark dispute arising between two entities engaged in the food business. The appellant, Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., is a well-known food chain that has built a substantial reputation under its trademarks WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS, and WOW MOMO INSTANT. These marks, registered under various classes of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, have become synonymous with fast food, particularly momos and related culinary products.

The appellant had adopted and started using the word marks and device marks containing “WOW” since 2008. Over time, it expanded its operations to more than 30 cities with over 600 outlets across India, recording a turnover exceeding ₹450 crores in the year 2023–2024. The company also maintained an extensive online presence, including its registered domain wow.wowmomo.com, registered in 2013.

In December 2024, the appellant discovered that the respondent, Wow Burger, had begun preparing to launch food services in India under the mark WOW BURGER. The appellant claimed that this mark infringed upon its registered marks and amounted to passing off. Consequently, a suit (CS (COMM) 1161/2024) was filed before the Delhi High Court seeking an interim injunction to restrain the respondents from using the mark WOW BURGER pending disposal of the suit. The learned Single Judge, however, by order dated 12 September 2025, refused the injunction, leading to the present appeal.

Procedural History: The appellant’s application for interlocutory injunction (IA 48983/2024) was heard and dismissed by the learned Single Judge. The Judge held that “WOW” is a common English word and cannot be monopolized. The Single Judge further noted that the appellant had not registered “WOW” as a standalone mark and that certain registrations of the appellant carried disclaimers disallowing exclusivity over individual words.

Dissatisfied, Wow Momo filed an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act before a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court. Despite being served with notice, the respondents did not appear. The Division Bench, therefore, proceeded to decide the appeal based on the submissions of the appellant’s counsel.

The Core Dispute: The central dispute revolved around whether the respondent’s mark WOW BURGER infringed the appellant’s registered marks WOW MOMO, WOW MOMO INSTANT, and WOW DIMSUMS.

The appellant argued that its trademark registrations granted it an exclusive statutory right under Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and that the use of the term “WOW” in conjunction with another food item by the respondent would cause confusion and association in the public mind.

The respondents, however, through their absence, left the defense unrepresented. Nonetheless, the Single Judge’s reasoning, treating “WOW” as a common English laudatory word incapable of exclusivity, was the principal issue scrutinized by the Division Bench.

Legal Reasoning and Analysis: The Division Bench conducted an extensive examination of the law governing trademark infringement, referring to several key provisions of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, including Sections 9, 17, 28, 29, and 30.

The Court clarified that the question of infringement under Section 29(2)(b) arises when a registered trademark is similar to another mark used for similar goods or services, leading to a likelihood of confusion among the public. The Court also noted that infringement must be evaluated from the perspective of a “consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.”

The Court observed that even if “WOW” was a common exclamation, the appellant’s marks — when viewed in their entirety such as WOW MOMO and WOW DIMSUMS — had acquired a distinctive and unique character. The combination of an exclamatory expression like “WOW” with the name of a food item created an innovative and distinctive composite mark, setting the appellant’s brand apart in the market.

In addressing the Single Judge’s observation that “WOW” lacked distinctiveness, the Bench drew attention to the principle of idea infringement, stating that while a single common word might not be protectable, the inventive idea of combining “WOW” with specific food items was unique to the appellant. The respondents’ adoption of a similar pattern (WOW BURGER) was thus not coincidental but suggestive of an attempt to trade upon the appellant’s brand identity.

The Court cited landmark precedents, including:

Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980 — distinguishing between infringement and passing off.

K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co., (1969) 2 SCC 131 — emphasizing the importance of the “essential feature” of a mark and phonetic similarity.

Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1701 — reaffirming that composite marks must be compared as a whole.

Wander Ltd. v. Antox India Pvt. Ltd., 1990 Supp SCC 727 — explaining appellate limits in interlocutory injunctions.

The Bench emphasized that infringement must be assessed on a “whole mark to whole mark” basis. The learned Single Judge had, in effect, dissected the appellant’s composite mark by isolating “WOW” from its context, contrary to the anti-dissection rule recognized in Indian and international jurisprudence.

The Court also invoked the family of marks doctrine, explaining that when a company owns multiple marks with a common prefix or suffix (like WOW MOMO, WOW DIMSUMS, WOW MOMO INSTANT), it builds a family of marks that acquires distinctiveness as a group. Any other mark using the same dominant prefix in the same trade area naturally leads to confusion and association in the consumer’s mind.

Additionally, the Bench noted that “WOW” was not being used by the respondents as a mere descriptive term; rather, its coupling with “BURGER” was deliberately evocative of the appellant’s marks. Applying the “initial interest confusion” test, the Court found that an average consumer encountering “WOW BURGER” would likely assume an association with “WOW MOMO.”

Judicial Reasoning and Decision: The Division Bench found that the Single Judge had erred in treating “WOW” as a mere descriptive expression devoid of distinctiveness. It held that while “WOW” alone might be common, its usage in combination with the food item formed a distinctive and protectable mark.

The Court observed that the essence of the appellant’s mark lay in the conceptual distinctiveness of pairing an exclamation with a product name, which imparted uniqueness. It concluded that the respondents’ use of “WOW BURGER” infringed upon the appellant’s registered trademarks under Section 29(2)(b) of the Act.

Consequently, the Division Bench set aside the order of the Single Judge and allowed the appeal, granting an injunction restraining the respondents from using the mark WOW BURGER or any other deceptively similar mark.

Law Settled:  This judgment reaffirms several critical principles in Indian trademark jurisprudence:

Composite Marks: The distinctiveness of a composite mark must be judged as a whole and not dissected into individual components.

Idea Infringement: Even if a word is common, the inventive idea of combining it with another expression may be protectable.

Family of Marks Doctrine: Entities owning a series of marks with a common element enjoy enhanced protection against infringing marks using that element.

Initial Interest Confusion: Likelihood of confusion at the first point of contact constitutes infringement, even if the consumer later realizes the difference.

Distinctiveness of Exclamatory Marks: An exclamation like “WOW,” when used innovatively in branding, can acquire distinctiveness deserving of protection.

Final Decision: The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed the appeal. The judgment of the Single Judge dated 12 September 2025 was set aside. The Court restrained the respondents from using the mark WOW BURGER or any similar mark likely to cause confusion or association with the appellant’s WOW MOMO brand. This decision reinforces the need to assess trademarks from the perspective of consumer perception and emphasizes that creativity and distinctiveness in brand composition deserve judicial protection.

Case Title: Wow Momo Foods Private Limited Vs. Wow Burger & Anr.

Case Number: FAO (OS) (COMM) 143/2025 

Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:9320-DB

Date of Decision: 16 October 2025

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Om Prakash Shukla

Disclaimer: 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.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi