Wow Momo Foods Private Limited vs Wow Burger & Anr

Delhi Hgh Court reaffirms that common and laudatory words cannot be monopolized

Date: October16, 2025

Citation: FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2025 & CM APPL. 59063/2025

Bench: C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla

Introduction

A suit was filed before the Delhi High Court by Kolkata-based Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd., owner of popular food brands such as WOW MOMO and WOW DIMSUMS to restrain Hong Kong-based Wow Burger from using the mark "WOW BURGER", alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

The preliminary ground of discussion was whether commonly used exclamatory expressions, such as "WOW" can be afforded exclusivity – especially when used as part of a composite trademark. The Court also engaged extensively with key trademark principles including likelihood of consumer confusion, the anti-dissection rule and acquired distinctiveness of common English words and the extent of protection that can be accorded to a family of marks.

Facts

Alleging trademark infringement and passing off, "Wow Momo" ("Appellant") sought a permanent and interim injunction, restraining Wow Burger from using the trademarks "WOW BURGER" and any other deceptively similar mark. Plaintiff claimed that it had coined and adopted the marks WOW! and WOW! MOMO in 2008.

The learned Single Judge rejected the application stating that there is no chance of likelihood of confusion between the rival marks on the following grounds –

1. Appellant does not have any trademark registration for the standalone term "WOW".
2. Appellant's registrations for WOW composite marks stand disclaimed – where by exclusivity over any individual word in the composite marks cannot be claimed.
3. "WOW" is a commonly used laudatory word, an exclamatory remark that constitutes part of ordinary parlance and therefore lacks distinctiveness and incapable of being monopolized by any single individual or entity.
4. Per Section 9(1)(b)6 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 ("the Act"), a word which merely conveys praise or describes the quality or characteristic of the goods or services, is not entitled to protection as a trademark or to monopoly.
5. Per Section 30(2)(a) of the Act, even if a non-distinctive word is registered, third parties are entitled to use it honestly and descriptively to indicate the nature, quality or other characteristics of their goods or services.
6. Appellant was estopped from claiming exclusivity over the mark WOW – since they had previously admitted that "WOW" is an ordinary English dictionary word, lacking in distinctiveness, and that distinctiveness was achieved only by combining the word WOW with another suffix.
7. There was no sufficient evidence to indicate that the word WOW had acquired a secondary meaning – associated exclusively with the Appellant.
8. The colour combination, stylisation and themes of the rival marks is different.
9. The respondent was selling burgers in Hong Kong, their USP being that they are protein rich and vegetarian. As against this, the Appellant was selling burgers under the name 'Moburg'.

The appeal arose from the above-mentioned order of a single judge that dismissed the interim injunction application against "WOW BURGER".

Court Analysis

Let us explore the Division Bench's assessment of similarity in rival marks, the concept of likelihood of confusion, limitations on exclusivity of common English terms, anti-dissection rule and recognition of a family of marks.

i. Similarity in rival marks and likelihood of Confusion

The Court examined whether the use of "WOW BURGER" would create confusion with the appellant's registered marks, such as "WOW MOMO" and "WOW DIMSUMS".

Applying the test of a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, it was concluded that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect reflection, who is aware of, or has seen, the Appellant's mark "WOW MOMO" would, when he later comes across respondent's mark "WOW BURGER" associate the marks with one another and presume the existence of a nexus between them.

The Court emphasised that trademark perception is rarely analytical or detailed; consumers rely on broad impressions formed during quick purchasing decisions, especially in the food service market.

ii. Common English Term and Limitations on Exclusivity

The Court acknowledged that "WOW" is a common English expression and an exclamation rather than an adjective describing the product. In the absence of evidence establishing that the word "WOW" had acquired secondary meaning uniquely associating it with the appellant, the Court held that exclusivity over the standalone usage of "WOW" could not be granted.

However, the Court opined that the term "WOW" is being used in conjunction with the term "BURGER" since the mark of the respondent is "WOW BURGER". When the expression "WOW" is combined with the food product "BURGER," the Court found that the resulting composite mark attained a level of distinctiveness, enabling it to function as a trademark in its own commercial context.

iii. Application of the Anti-Dissection Rule

The Court reiterated that marks must be assessed as a whole rather than dissecting their individual components in isolation. This principle is aligned with marketplace realities where consumers retain only a general impression rather than specific details. Referring to McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, the Court noted that consumers do not undertake side-by-side comparisons but rely on imperfect recollection and overall similarity in the visual, phonetic, and structural characteristics of marks. Therefore, the correct legal inquiry focuses on the composite impression conveyed by "WOW MOMO" and "WOW BURGER" to the ordinary consumer.

iv. Recognition of a Family of Marks

A key reasoning adopted by the Court was the relevance of the family of marks doctrine. The appellant had developed a series of "WOW" formative trademarks such as "WOW" MOMO", "WOW MOMO INSTANT", "WOW DIMSUMS" wherein the term "WOW" was prefixed to a food item. The respondent's use of the expression"WOW" with a good item, i.e., "BURGER" followed the same pattern – making the mark appear as though it is a part of the Appellant's WOW family of marks. Such similarity, as per the court, was bound to cause consumer confusion and was considered sufficient to establish a likelihood of confusion.

Given the above, the Court concluded that use of the Impugned trademark "WOW BURGER" by the respondent would result in confusion in the minds of the consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection.

Conclusion

The Division Bench indicated that the proper test for infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trademarks Act, 1999 ("The Act") entails comparison of marks from the perspective of an average consumer who has an imperfect recollection of the respective marks.

The Bench concluded that "WOW BURGER" was deceptively similar to "WOW MOMO", thus potentially leading consumers to believe there was an association between the marks. The Court indicated that notwithstanding "WOW" being a common exclamatory word, the distinctive usage of "WOW" with food items – namely "MOMO" and "DIMSUMS" – gives a composite mark a distinctiveness that separates it from the commonality of the word.

This judgement brings out that trademark distinctiveness is contextual and single or common word can get registered and acquire protection when creatively integrated into a brand identity.

Read Full Judgement

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.