In its recent decision dated 12 September 2025, the Delhi High Court rejected and declined to grant an interim injunction sought by Wow Momo Foods Private Limited against a Hong Kong-based business intending to launch its food operations in India under the name “Wow Burger.” Wow Momo Foods Private Limited is a well-established Indian quick service restaurant (QSR) chain headquartered in Kolkata. The company, founded in 2008 by Sagar Daryani and Binod Homagai, operates over 600 outlets across more than 30 cities in India.
It has launched several food brands such as “WOW! MOMO,” “WOW! CHINA,” “WOW! DIMSUM,” “WOW! CHICKEN,” “WOW! KULFI,” and “WOW! Eats.” The mark “WOW!” forms an essential component of all its sub-brands, and the company claimed to have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation since inception.
The dispute arose when Wow Momo discovered in December 2024 that the defendants, a Hong Kong-based business, intended to launch their Indian operations under the mark “Wow Burger,” focusing on protein-rich vegetarian burgers. The Plaintiff contended that the word “WOW!” was its distinctive and dominant feature, forming an inseparable part of its family of trademarks. It argued that the defendants had slavishly copied its mark, likely causing confusion and deception among consumers.
Wow Momo further asserted that “WOW!” was an arbitrary and distinctive term in the food industry, and through extensive use since 2008, had acquired secondary meaning. The company maintained that disclaimers in certain registrations or earlier admissions before the Trademark Registrar could not prevent enforcement of its rights against third parties. Consequently, it sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using “WOW BURGER,” contending that all three essential conditions for an injunction prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury were met.
The key issues before the Court were whether the Plaintiff had any registered rights over “WOW” or “WOW! BURGER,” whether “WOW” constituted a distinctive or dominant feature of the Plaintiff’s trademarks, and whether its earlier admission of non-distinctiveness operated as estoppel. The Court also examined whether “WOW” had acquired secondary meaning, whether “WOW! BURGER” had been continuously used as a trademark, and whether the defendants’ mark was deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks under the anti-dissection rule.
In its detailed analysis, the Court first observed that no registration details were produced to establish the Plaintiff’s proprietary rights over “WOW” or “WOW! BURGER.” It held that “WOW” is a common English dictionary word used as an exclamatory expression to convey excitement or admiration. In the food and hospitality sector, it is laudatory, often used to describe satisfaction with taste or quality. The Court noted that Wow Momo had itself admitted before the Registrar of Trade Marks that “WOW” alone was not distinctive. Having taken that position, the Plaintiff could not now approbate and reprobate by asserting distinctiveness.
On the question of secondary meaning, the Court found that continuous use of “WOW” since 2008 did not constitute a sufficiently long period to establish secondary meaning in the minds of consumers. Further, the Court held that “WOW! BURGER” was used merely as a menu item within the Plaintiff’s restaurants, and not as a separate house mark or brand. For burgers, the Plaintiff primarily used the brand name “Moburg.” Accordingly, the Court rejected the claim that “WOW! BURGER” was a trademark belonging to the Plaintiff. It also noted that except for the common use of the word “WOW,” there was no similarity in the marks’ overall structure, style, or trade dress.
The Court held that Wow Momo had failed to establish a prima facie case for interim injunction, as it lacked registered trademark rights over “WOW” or “WOW! BURGER.” Without a valid right, the foundation for a trademark infringement claim was missing. The balance of convenience was not in the Plaintiff’s favour, since it was effectively attempting to monopolize a common English word. The Court further found that no irreparable injury would be caused to Wow Momo, as there were no protectable rights capable of being infringed. It went so far as to observe that the Plaintiff had attempted to mislead the Court about the extent of its trademark usage.
While dismissing the injunction application, the Court clarified that its observations were only prima facie and would not affect the merits of the case at trial. The matter has been listed for further hearing on 15 January 2026.
In arriving at its decision, the Court relied on several precedents. In Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra (2025 SCC SC 1701), the Supreme Court held that generic, descriptive, or laudatory words cannot be monopolized, and that marks must be compared as a whole rather than dissected.
Similarly, in Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta (AIR 1963 SC 449), the Supreme Court emphasized holistic comparison of marks. The Court also referred to Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Beverages Pvt. Ltd. (2004) 5 SCC 257, which held that distinctiveness must be proved in each case through evidence, and to Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd. (CS(COMM) 1099/2024), where the Delhi High Court held that generic words cannot become trademarks without losing their primary meaning. Applying these principles, the Court observed that “WOW” remains a common term used to describe taste or delight and thus cannot acquire exclusive trademark protection.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court’s judgment in Wow Momo Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Wow Burger & Anr. is a significant pronouncement in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It reinforces that common English expressions like “WOW” remain part of the public domain and cannot be appropriated by any one entity, regardless of its commercial success. The Court’s reasoning underscores the balance between intellectual property protection and fair competition, ensuring that trademark law is not weaponized to fence off ordinary words from public use. By refusing to grant monopoly over “WOW,” the Court preserved open market competition and reaffirmed that in a free economy, no business can claim exclusive rights over words used to express common human reactions such as the simple exclamation “WOW!” to describe something delightful.
About the Author:
Pranjal Gupta is a second-year B.B.A. LL.B student at New Law College, Bharati Vidyapeeth (Deemed to be University), Pune. He is keenly interested in exploring diverse facets of law and aims to build a strong foundation in legal research and writing.