Delhi High Court Permanently Bars ‘Divine Miss India’, Says Prefix Cannot Dilute Times Group’s ‘Miss India’ Mark

Delhi High Court Permanently Bars ‘Divine Miss India’, Says Prefix Cannot Dilute Times Group’s ‘Miss India’ Mark

Introduction

The Delhi High Court has permanently restrained Seraphic Divine Beauty Pvt. Ltd. from organising or promoting a beauty pageant under the name “Divine Miss India,” holding that it infringes and passes off the iconic “Miss India” trademark owned by Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. (Times Group).

In a judgment dated January 21, 2026, Justice Jyoti Singh ruled that the impugned mark was deceptively similar and intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation associated with “Miss India.”

Factual Background

Bennett, Coleman & Company Ltd. submitted that “Miss India” is a registered trademark adopted in 1964 and has acquired immense goodwill through decades of continuous use in organising nationally recognised beauty pageants.

In May 2019, Bennett discovered that Seraphic Divine Beauty Pvt. Ltd. was promoting a pageant titled “Divine Miss India” through social media platforms and the website www.divinemissindia.com , inviting applications from across the country. It was further pointed out that Seraphic Divine had filed trademark applications for “Divine Miss India,” which were either refused or subsequently abandoned.

Procedural Background

On May 14, 2019, the Court had granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Seraphic Divine from using the impugned mark and directing deletion of the infringing domain name.

Despite service of summons, the defendant failed to appear or contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte. The matter thereafter culminated in a final decree in favour of Bennett.

Issues

1. Whether the use of the mark “Divine Miss India” amounts to infringement of the registered trademark “Miss India.”

2. Whether such use constitutes passing off by exploiting the goodwill of the plaintiff.

3. Whether addition of the prefix “Divine” sufficiently distinguishes the impugned mark from the plaintiff’s mark.

Contentions

Bennett contended that the impugned mark was deceptively similar to its well-known “Miss India” trademark and that the services offered were identical namely, the organisation and promotion of beauty pageants. It argued that the defendant’s adoption of the mark was calculated to cause confusion and mislead participants and the public into believing an association with the established “Miss India” pageant.

The defendant did not contest the proceedings.

Court’s Observations and Analysis

The Court held that mere addition of the prefix “Divine” did not sufficiently distinguish the rival marks. It observed that the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark remained “Miss India.”

Justice Jyoti Singh noted that confusion among the public was inevitable. The Court observed that a person who had earlier encountered the “Miss India” mark would be left in a state of “wonderment” upon encountering “Divine Miss India,” potentially believing there to be an association. The Court further applied the doctrine of initial interest confusion, observing that even momentary confusion or association in the mind of an average consumer is sufficient to establish infringement. The fact that confusion may be dispelled upon closer scrutiny does not negate the infringement. Given the deceptive similarity of the marks and the identical nature of services, the Court concluded that infringement and passing off were clearly established.

Decision

The Delhi High Court permanently restrained Seraphic Divine Beauty Pvt. Ltd. and its associates from using the mark “Divine Miss India” or any deceptively similar variation. The Court also awarded actual costs in favour of Bennett and directed that the matter be placed before the Taxing Officer for computation of costs.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Akhil Saxena and Palak Batra, Advocates.