Delhi High Court Rejects Monopoly Over 'WOW': Trademark Injunction Denied

The Delhi High Court dismissed an application for interim injunction filed by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, which sought to restrain the Defendants, Wow Burger & Anr, from using the mark "WOW BURGER." The Plaintiff alleged infringement of its marks "WOW!" and "WOW! MOMO," contending that "WOW!" was the dominant and distinctive feature of its trademarks. However, the Court found that "WOW" is a common dictionary word lacking inherent distinctiveness and declined to grant exclusivity over it.

Plaintiff's Case

The Plaintiff contended that:

1. They adopted the marks WOW/WOW MOMO in 2008 and have since expanded into over 600 outlets across 30+ cities, holding registrations for various WOW-formative marks in multiple classes.
2. Their house mark "WOW!" is the essential and distinctive feature of their trademarks, with strong consumer association.
3. They have operated the domain www.wowmomo.com since 2013 and built a significant social media presence.
4. In December 2024, they discovered the Defendants' use of "WOW BURGER" in relation to identical goods.
5. The Defendants have copied the dominant feature "WOW!", causing likelihood of confusion.
6. "WOW!" is arbitrary in the context of food services and, through extensive use since 2008, has acquired secondary meaning and goodwill.
7. Disclaimers on certain registrations do not bar enforcement of rights against third parties.
8. Their prior responses to Registry objections against third parties cannot create estoppel in these proceedings.
9. As both parties operate in the food industry, interim injunction was necessary to prevent passing off and infringement.

Since the Defendants failed to appear despite notice, their right to file a written statement was closed, and the Court proceeded to hear the injunction application.

Court's Analysis

1. Registrations and Scope of Rights
   1. The Plaintiff's registrations are only for composite marks, such as WOW! MOMO, WOW! DIMSUM, WOW! CHINA, WOW! CHINESE, WOW! ACTIVE, etc.
   2. No registration exists for "WOW!" or "WOW! BURGER" as standalone marks.
   3. Disclaimers on record restrict exclusive rights over individual words like "WOW."
2. Distinctiveness of "WOW"
   1. "WOW" is a common English exclamation, descriptive of quality or impact.
   2. Plaintiff's claim that "WOW" is the dominant feature was rejected; courts consistently hold ordinary words to be non-distinctive.
3. Secondary Meaning
   1. The Plaintiff argued that continuous use since 2008 gave "WOW" secondary meaning which was rejected by the Court.
   2. A 16-year period is not sufficient to establish exclusivity.
   3. Other businesses in the food industry also use "WOW."
   4. Thus, no exclusive secondary association with the Plaintiff was proven.
4. WOW! BURGER Claim
   1. No registration for WOW! BURGER exists.
   2. Evidence shows it was used merely as a menu item (last in December 2018), not as a brand or source identifier.
   3. Hence, Plaintiff's claim of bona fide use was misleading.
5. Source Identifier
   1. Awards and investments relied on by the Plaintiff related only to WOW! MOMO, not to "WOW!" or "WOW! BURGER."
   2. The Court held that the true source identifier of the Plaintiff is WOW! MOMO (composite mark), not "WOW!" alone.
6. Comparison of Marks
   1. The Court refused to compare WOW! BURGER with the Defendant's mark, as WOW! BURGER is not Plaintiff's valid mark.
   2. A comparison between WOW! MOMO and Defendant's mark showed no similarity beyond the shared word "WOW."
   3. The color schemes, stylization, and themes were entirely different.
7. Attempt to Monopolize Common Word
   1. The Court stalled the Plaintiff's attempt to monopolize the ordinary word "WOW."
   2. Trademark law does not permit exclusive rights over common language without proof of distinctiveness.

Conclusion

The Court held that the Plaintiff failed to establish:

1. A prima facie case;
2. Balance of convenience in its favor; and
3. Proof of irreparable injury.

Accordingly, the injunction application was dismissed.

Our Comment

This decision reinforces a well-established tenet of trademark law: businesses cannot secure exclusive rights over common dictionary words unless they can demonstrate compelling evidence of secondary meaning. The Court's analysis makes clear that seeking protection for a portion of a composite mark particularly when that portion is a widely used term within the relevant industry is unlikely to succeed. Courts are generally reluctant to grant monopoly over ordinary expressions unless there is robust proof that the term has become uniquely associated with the claimant's goods or services.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.