Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 28 OCTOBER 2025

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited vs Wow Burger & Anr

Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Contributor
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants

Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants

• Full-service law firm established in 2004 by Mr. Vipul Maheshwari, headquartered in New Delhi,...

View firm profile
Explore more from Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants

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...

IndiaIntellectual Property
Akshi Seem
Akshi Seem

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.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Copy, Right? ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC

When an artificial intelligence system is trained on copyrighted news content, and later answers a user’s question using what it learned, has the law been broken? On 24th July 2026, the Delhi High Court answered that question, at least for now. In ANI Media Pvt. Ltd. v. Open AI OpCo LLC, Justice Amit Bansal declined to grant an interim injunction against OpenAI, holding, on a prima facie, interim stage view, that the company’s use of ANI’s news content to train its large language models (“LLMs”) falls within the fair dealing exception under Section 52(1)(a) of the Copyright Act, 1957
IndiaIntellectual Property
S.S. Rana & Co.
S.S. Rana & Co.
Article

AI Training Data, Copyright Risk And Commercial Liability: What Businesses Need To Know

On 8 October 2026, USA Today Co. and its affiliated newspaper companies, which publish 19 titles including USA Today, the Detroit Free Press and The Arizona Republic, sued seven OpenAI entities in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint alleges that OpenAI copied their journalism to train its models, stripped identifying information from it, and now uses those models to give ChatGPT users summaries that substitute for the original reporting. The publishers seek more than USD 250 million in damages, an injunction and an order for the destruction of models and training sets containing their content.
IndiaIntellectual Property
Legitpro Law
Legitpro Law
Article

Decree Execution Under Order XXI CPC – An In-depth Insight

Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the comprehensive framework for executing decrees in Indian civil litigation. This article examines the procedural mechanisms for decree execution, including filing execution petitions, methods of property attachment, and the legal processes for recovering money decrees through sale of attached assets.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

The Limitation Clock On Money Recovery: Understanding Article 113, Acknowledgment And Extension Under Indian Law

Understanding the critical timelines and legal frameworks governing money recovery suits in India requires navigating the complex interplay between the Limitation Act of 1963 and the Indian Contract Act of 1872. When does the clock actually start ticking on your right to sue, and how can acknowledgments or digital evidence extend or restart that crucial three-year window?
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Section 138 Of The Negotiable Instruments Act: What The Supreme Court’s New Procedural Guidelines Mean For Cheque-Bounce Cases

A cheque is supposed to offer something close to certainty in a commercial transaction. When a cheque is issued, the recipient ordinarily expects that it will be honoured when presented. A dishonoured cheque, therefore, is not merely a failed payment; it can have wider consequences for the credibility and discipline of commercial dealings.
IndiaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

Received A DRT / Sarfaesi Notice? A Borrower’s And Guarantor’s Guide To Response Timelines And Defences

The Debts Recovery Tribunal, also known as DRT, follows certain rules which relate to the time limits mentioned in the Recovery of Debts and Bankruptcy Act, 1993 (RDB Act or the Act). These limits are not merely procedural requirements and instead are factors which influence the right of the borrower or guarantor depending on the stage of recovery proceedings in question.
IndiaFinance and Banking
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Article

The Digital Personal Data Protection Consent Manager Framework: What Data Fiduciaries Must Do Before The November 2026 Deadline

India's Digital Personal Data Protection Act introduces a mandatory Consent Manager Framework operational from November 2026, requiring organizations processing personal data to integrate with registered intermediary platforms that enable individuals to manage consent across multiple services. With penalties reaching INR 250 crore per violation and implementation timelines spanning 12-18 months, enterprises face critical infrastructure modernization requirements before the May 2027 full compliance deadline.
IndiaPrivacy
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants
Maheshwari & Co. Advocates & Legal Consultants