Trademark Law and the Limits of Exclusivity over Laudatory Words
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: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.”
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.
To reinforce this reasoning, the Court referred to multiple judicial precedents. In 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. The Court emphasized that composite marks must be compared as a whole and that cherry-picking common elements like “PRIDE” in “BLENDERS PRIDE” and “LONDON PRIDE” cannot form a basis for infringement. This principle applied equally to the use of “WOW.”
The Court also cited Institute of Directors v. Worlddevcorp Technology and Business Solutions Pvt. Ltd., CS (COMM) 611/2023, decided on 11.12.2023, where it was held that ordinary English words like “Institute” and “Directors” cannot be monopolized as trademarks, as doing so would improperly privatize the English language.
Similarly, in Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited, CS (COMM) 1099/2024, decided on 22.08.2025, the Delhi High Court refused exclusivity over the word “Yatra” in relation to travel services. It reiterated that generic or commonly descriptive words cannot acquire protection unless they unmistakably acquire secondary meaning over many decades of exclusive use.
The Court further relied on Marico Limited v. Agro Tech Foods Limited, FAO(OS) 352/2010, decided on 01.11.2010, where it was held that even slightly altered descriptive words like “LOSORB” (derived from “LOW ABSORB”) cannot be monopolized, because otherwise even dictionary words would get blocked by minor tweaks.
The Privy Council decision in Standard Ideal Co. v. Standard Sanitary Manufacturing Company, (1910) 27 RPC 789 was also invoked to stress that words like “Standard,” being descriptive of quality, cannot be monopolized as trademarks.
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 also 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, decided on 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.
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.
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.
Case Title: WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. VS. WOW Burger & Anr.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1161/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8044
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Date of Order: 12 September 2025
Hon’ble Judge: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
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
