Expanding the Realms of Trademark Distinctiveness, Family of Marks, and Infringement – Debriefing the Wow Momo v. Wow Burger case

April 21, 2026
Back to Blog
Featured image for “Expanding the Realms of Trademark Distinctiveness, Family of Marks, and Infringement – Debriefing the Wow Momo v. Wow Burger case”

Introduction

Trademarks are one of the primary businesses/commercial tools that enables public to identify and associate goods and services as emanating from a particular trader/ brand owner / proprietor/entity. At the core of Trademark law, lies the doctrine of distinctiveness, which may either be inherent, or built over time by use and promotion, i.e., acquired. Time and about, through a plethora of cases, the Courts in India have defined and re-defined the concept of distinctiveness. 

In India, the concept of distinctiveness is enshrined under Section 9(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, which at the outset lays down that trademarks which are devoid of distinctive character and not capable of distinguishing the goods and services of one proprietor from that of the other, shall not be registered. In other words, the legal framework prohibits the registration of those marks which are generic or descriptive or qualifying in nature, i.e., non-distinctive. Having said that, a mark that is non-distinctive can still be considered for registration if it has acquired a distinctive character through usage or is well-known.

Considering distinctiveness can either be inherent or acquired in nature, in the spectrum of inherent distinctiveness, marks which are higher, i.e., fanciful (or inventive), arbitrary or suggestive, are inherently distinctive in nature and possess the high quotient of trademark registrability. On the other hand, marks that are lower on the inherent distinctiveness spectrum, i.e., descriptive marks or words that are generic in nature, may acquire distinctiveness or ‘secondary meaning’[i] by virtue of long, continuous and extensive commercial usage and promotion.

In order to ascertain whether a mark has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning or not, a holistic assessment of factors such as tenure and quality of commercial usage, scale of advertisement/marketing of the mark and the recognition among the public and members of trade play a crucial role.

Recently, the dispute between Wow Momo and Wow Burger before the Delhi High Court delved into the realms of trademark distinctiveness, secondary meaning and trademark infringement. In October 2025, the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned the order[ii] passed by the Single Judge and granted interim injunction restraining third party from using the mark WOW BURGER which was found to be deceptively similar to the prior trademark WOW MOMO, on account of the dominant and essential feature WOW being present in the subsequent mark.  

Brief Background

In 2024, WOW Momo Foods Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Wow Momo Foods’), the proprietor of the marks WOW MOMO, , WOW DIMSUMS and WOW MOMO INSTANT (together “Wow Momo marks”), instituted a suit[iii] against WOW BURGER (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Respondent’) before the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court. Wow Momo Foods alleged that the Respondent had infringed their prior Wow Momo marks by adopting  deceptively, confusingly, and conceptually similar marks, namely, WOW BURGER,  and  (together “Conflicting marks”), which comprised of the word WOW as a prominent feature. Wow Momo Foods sought for an injunction restraining the Respondent from using the marks WOW BURGER,  and .

Before the single judge, Wow Momo Foods asserted that they had coined, adopted and started using the Wow Momo marks in 2008 and has been in the business of rendering catering, dine-in, and delivery services across 30 cities and 600 outlets, spread across India. In December 2024, Wow Momo Foods came across the similar business operations of the Respondent under the Conflicting marks. Thereafter, Wow Momo Foods instituted a suit and contended that by virtue of the registrations accorded to the WOW! family of trademarks, they were entitled to injunct, for same / similar products / services, any third-party using a mark wherein the term WOW forms a prominent feature, thereby rendering such a mark deceptively similar to Wow Momo Foods’s registered and prior trademarks.

Original Judgement

The Single Judge rejected the application to grant injunction to the Respondent citing that the likelihood or scope of confusion between both the marks is negated for the following reasons:

  1. Wow Momo Foods did not have any valid statutory right over the standalone term ‘WOW’ and moreover had never even applied for the registration of the standalone term;
  2. The Judge stated that the term ‘WOW’ is a laudatory word and an exclamatory remark which forms part of ordinary parlance and lacks distinctiveness, thereby the same is incapable of being monopolised by a single proprietor;
  3. The standalone term ‘WOW’ signified the quality and nature of the product and since the same was descriptive in nature, it was not entitled to trademark protection. Moreover, by applying the principle of the anti-dissection rule, Wow Momo Foods cannot dissect the mark and claim exclusivity over the expression ‘WOW’;
  4. Wow Momo Foods was not able to establish that the word WOW had acquired ‘secondary meaning’;
  5. There was no similarity between the marks (except the word WOW), colour combination, stylisation and themes in both;
  6. While the Respondent was selling protein rich and vegetarian burgers in Hong Kong under the Conflicting marks, Wow Momo Foods was selling vegetarian and non-vegetarian burgers under a different sub-brand / name ‘Moburg’.

Aggrieved by the order of the single judge, Wow Momo Foods preferred an appeal[iv] before the Division Bench.

Judgement in Appeal

The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court overturned the order of the Single Judge and opined as follows:

  1. Applying the principle of consumer of ‘average intelligence’ and ‘imperfect reflection’, it was concluded that when a consumer who has already seen Wow Momo marks, comes across the Respondent’s Conflicting marks, they would be inclined to presume that there is an association between both the marks. The fact that both the marks are being used in relation to fast food, such a consumer would likely presume that Wow Momo Foods has launched a burger range under the conflicting mark and name of WOW BURGER. Therefore, applying the principle of initial interest, the Court observed that the likelihood of confusion or association in the mind of consumers upon seeing the Respondent’s Conflicting mark is likely and any subsequent knowledge about both rival marks being different will not deter the effects of initial infringement.
  • While the term ‘WOW’ by itself has not acquired any secondary meaning, however, when used in conjunction with the food item being offered by the proprietor of the mark, the same has acquired distinctiveness. Thus, the idea of using the term WOW! with a food item, as coined and adopted by Wow Momo Foods is inventive and distinctive and liable to receive trademark protection.  
  • The Bench referred to the concept of ‘idea infringement’[v] in relation to the Respondent’s action, wherein it was noted that the very act of the Respondent in combining the word WOW with another food item BURGER to come up with the mark WOW BURGER is borrowed from the idea as reflected in Wow Momo Foods’s marks such as WOW MOMO and WOW DIMSUM. Thus, such replication of idea of coinage of the mark is likely to result in confusion.
  • The absence of Wow Momo Foods’s statutory right over the word ‘WOW’ does not take away Wow Momo Foods’s claim over the Wow Momo marks as a whole or impact their right to institute a suit to claim relief against infringement by a third party using a deceptively similar Conflicting marks.
  • Wow Momo marks are a family of marks wherein WOW is a common and essential feature. In view of the family of trademark, the prefix WOW has acquired distinctiveness and thus the use by any third party, combining the prefix WOW with another food item would result in confusion and deception among the public and members of the trade. The Conflicting marks would definitely result in confusion among the public who would associate the Respondent’s mark with Wow Momo Foods’s family of marks.
  • Further, the visual differences as highlighted by the Single Judge would not reduce the likelihood of confusion and were also irrelevant to the purpose of infringement.

Thus, in light of the above, the Court granted injunctive relief to Wow Momo Foods and restrained the Respondents from using the Conflicting marks or any other identical/deceptively similar mark to Wow Momo Foods’s mark.

Conclusion / Analysis

The WOW MOMO v. WOW BURGER case has deep dived into the concept of trademark infringement and distinctiveness of trademarks. The case has reinforced the concept that distinctiveness can be acquired through creative combinations, wherein mundane words are brought together to create a distinctive mark. In order to arrive at their conclusion, the Hon’ble court was persuaded by conceptual similarity, initial interest confusion, and the overall likelihood of association in the fast-food space. Moreover, the Hon’ble Court recognized that those businesses which are developing a family of trademarks are entitled to claim relief from third parties who are adopting imitations of such marks in similar/allied markets.

It is worth noting that the Division Bench’s judgment in the matter does not eliminate the rule against monopolizing ordinary laudatory terms. It simply shows how sustained and source-identifying use of a non-distinctive element within a sound trademark structure may attract protection against close conceptual imitation.

For brand owners, the ruling is also an important reminder that trademark strength may lie not only in an isolated word, but also in the commercial impression created by the brand name overall.

Further, with the reaffirmation of ‘idea infringement’ or infringement due to conceptual similarity, the Court has again acknowledged that brand imitations can go beyond the traditional visual and verbal comparisons, and the same amounts to trademark infringement. Such acknowledgment will enable brand owners to pay more attention and care to conceptual similarity of brand identities and appreciate how an underlying brand idea can help distinguish one brand name from another.

Contributed by: Doyita Mukherjee, with guidance from Aditi Verma Thakur

[i] The concept of ‘secondary meaning’ stems from the idea that a word having a primary meaning has in a way lost that primary meaning, and by virtue of long and extensive use and promotion of said word by the brand owner, the same has developed a secondary meaning in connection with the products or services for which it is used. For example, SUPER CUP for teas [Godfrey Phillips India Ltd. vs Girnar Food & Beverages Private Limited (1998) 9 SCC 531] and SHAKTIMAN for agricultural equipment [Shaktiman Equipments Private Limited v. Union of India & Others (2024 MHC 4124)]

[ii] Judgement dated 12 September 2025, in IA 48983/2024 of CS (Comm) 1161/20242 before Delhi High Court

[iii] Supra note (ii)

[iv] Judgment dated 16October 2025, in FAO(OS) (COMM) 143/2025 & CM APPL. 59063/2025 before DB, Delhi High Court

[v] ‘Idea infringement’ generally refers to the unauthorized use of a concept, which is often actionable under trademark law. Trademark law may prohibit “conceptual” similarities that create consumer confusion, especially under Section 29 of the Trademarks Act. [Bulgari SPA v. Notandas Gems Private Limited ((2022) 90 PTC 171/ CS(COMM) 658/2021)]

Share: