INTRODUCTION

WOW Momo, a popular Indian quick service restaurant (QSR) chain founded in 2008, is known for its fusion of traditional momos with modern flavors. Operating over 600 outlets across India, it uses marks like “WOW!”, “WOW! MOMO”, “WOW! CHINA”, and “WOW! CHICKEN.” Over time, the brand has positioned “WOW!” as its housemark, symbolizing the excitement and satisfaction of its food experience.

A dispute arose when Hong Kong-based WOW Burger sought to enter the Indian market with the mark “WOW BURGER.” WOW Momo approached the Delhi High Court seeking an injunction, claiming distinctiveness and exclusivity over its “WOW!” family of marks. The case raised a key question — can a business claim exclusivity over a common exclamation like “WOW”? It underscores the balance trademark law must strike between protecting brand identity and allowing fair use of descriptive or laudatory terms.

 

WOW MOMO’S ARGUMENT FOR EXCLUSIVITY

In 2024, WOW Momo Foods Private Limited instituted CS (COMM) 1161/2024 before the Commercial Division of the Delhi High Court, alleging that WOW Burger, a Hong Kong-based food company, had infringed its registered trademarks by intending to launch business in India under the mark WOW BURGER.

The Plaintiff WOW Momo Foods Private Limited argued that through extensive use and consistent branding, the term “WOW!” had become synonymous with its business and was capable of identifying its goods and services. The plaintiff emphasized its substantial marketing investments, nationwide presence, and consumer recognition, contending that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively associated with WOW Momo.

The company argued that any business using “WOW” for similar goods or services could mislead customers into thinking it was linked to WOW Momo. Therefore, an application for an interim injunction was made against WOW Burger, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

 

WOW BURGER’S STAND ON COMMON USAGE

The defendant, WOW Burger, a Hong Kong–based food company, contended that “WOW” is a common, laudatory expression, widely used in everyday speech to convey admiration or delight. In the food and hospitality sector, words like “WOW,” “TASTY,” or “FRESH” are descriptive of the experience or quality of the product, not indicators of origin.

WOW Burger argued that no one should monopolize a common trade term like “WOW.” It noted that WOW Momo’s trademarks covered composite marks— “WOW! MOMO” and “WOW! CHINA”—and included disclaimers denying exclusive rights to “WOW” itself.

The defendant also highlighted the differences in logo, stylization, color scheme, and trade dress, asserting that consumers would easily distinguish WOW Burger’s branding from WOW Momo’s.

INITIAL ORDER:

In the initial order dated 12 September 2025, the case was decided by Justice Anish Dayal, sitting as a Single Judge of the Delhi High Court refused to grant an interim injunction in favor of WOW Momo. The Court held that WOW Momo could not claim exclusivity over the term “WOW,” given its descriptive and laudatory nature in the food and hospitality industry.

The Court’s reasoning was:

• “WOW” is a common, laudatory word widely used in the food industry;
• It is descriptive and not inherently distinctive on its own;
• WOW Momo had no standalone registration for “WOW,” only composite marks like “WOW! MOMO,” some with disclaimers;
• Compared as a whole, the marks differed in style, colour, and trade dress, showing no prima facie similarity or likelihood of confusion;
• Hence, the Court refused to restrain the defendant from using “WOW BURGER.”

” Consequently, the Court declined to restrain the defendant from using its mark at this stage.

 

FROM REJECTION TO APPEAL: WOW MOMO’S NEXT MOVE

Aggrieved by the refusal of injunction, WOW Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. filed an appeal before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.

The appellant argued that the Single Judge failed to recognize the distinctiveness acquired by its “WOW!” marks through extensive and continuous use, and erroneously treated “WOW” as merely descriptive. It further contended that the order ignored the overall commercial impression of the “WOW!” family of marks and overlooked the principle that acquired distinctiveness can transform even common expressions into protectable trademarks.

 

DIVISION BENCH RESTORES INJUNCTION IN WOW MOMO’S FAVOUR

 

In its detailed order dated 16 October 2025, the Division Bench comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla observed that a consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, familiar with WOW MOMO, would naturally associate the mark WOW BURGER with the same source. The Court held:

“If WOW BURGER were to be introduced into the market, it would be normal for any average consumer, who is aware of the pre-existing WOW MOMO brand, to presume that the appellant has launched a burger range under the name WOW BURGER.

 

The Court held that the association between “WOW” and a food item—such as “WOW MOMO” or “WOW DIMSUMS”—creates a distinctive trademark, with “WOW” forming a prominent part of it. This association was deemed sufficient to constitute infringement under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, and the Court restrained WOW Burger from using the mark pending trial.

 

APPLICABILITY OF THE ANTI-DISSECTION RULE – THE “DOMINANT MARK”

The Division Bench also examined the applicability of the anti-dissection rule, which requires that composite marks be compared as a whole rather than broken into parts. 

 

However, as reaffirmed in Pernod Ricard, the anti-dissection principle is not applied mechanically. Courts should avoid rigid, side-by-side comparisons and instead balance interpretative doctrines like the anti-dissection rule and the dominant mark doctrine. Though often cited together, these principles do not always align and must be applied according to the facts and commercial context of each case.

 

This view is supported by Section 17(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which states that registration of a composite mark does not grant exclusive rights over its individual or non-distinctive parts. It underscores that protection applies to the mark as a whole, not to common elements within it.

 

The Bench held that the Single Judge’s reliance on the anti-dissection rule was misplaced and inconsistent, as he dissected the marks by isolating “WOW” from “WOW MOMO” and “WOW DIMSUMS.” It clarified that while “WOW” is a common term, it remains the dominant and prominent part of the appellant’s marks, making its separation contrary to the rule invoked.

 

COURT’S OBSERVATIONS ON DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY

The Court further observed that the determination of deceptive similarity must be made by comparing the two marks as a whole, recognizing that the degree of resemblance necessary to cause confusion cannot be defined through rigid or objective standards. The assessment depends on how the marks appear to an average consumer of ordinary intelligence and imperfect recollection, guided by the overall impression rather than minute details or side-by-side comparisons.

 

This principle reinforces that when a defendant reproduces the essential or distinctive features of the plaintiff’s mark, superficial differences in packaging, design, or trade dress cannot prevent a finding of infringement. Even if the external presentation varies, the resemblance in the dominant or memorable part of the mark may alone be sufficient to mislead consumers. The decisive test, therefore, lies in identifying the element of the composite mark that fixes itself in the public’s mind as its true source identifier.

 

CONCLUSION:
The Delhi High Court’s decision reaffirms that even common words like “WOW” can gain strong trademark protection when they acquire distinctiveness through continuous and consistent use. While no one can monopolise a generic expression, the Court recognised that “WOW” had become closely associated with WOW Momo in the minds of consumers. The ruling highlights that in trademark law, the real test is public perception — and a simple word, when used effectively, can become a powerful source identifier.