Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Luggage Brand Mokobara In Trademark Infringement Case
Delhi High Court Grants Relief To Luggage Brand Mokobara In Trademark Infringement Case
Introduction
The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief to Mokobara, a new-age luggage bag manufacturer, in a trademark infringement case against defendants who were producing and selling deceptively similar and virtually identical products.
Factual Background
Mokobara discovered that the defendants were selling suitcases under the name 'Greenland' that were virtually identical to Mokobara's products, including the unique rectangular design, distinct trade dress, and other features. The plaintiff argued that the defendants had deliberately and calculatedly copied every single aspect of Mokobara's suitcases, with a dishonest intention to mislead the public into believing that their products were those of the plaintiff.
Procedural Background
The case was filed by Mokobara Lifestyle Private Limited against Mr. Fazal Mohamed Yakub Patka and others in the Delhi High Court, with the case number CS(COMM) 591/2025. The plaintiff filed an application seeking interim relief. The defendants were served with notice, but no counsel appeared on their behalf, leading the court to pass an ex-parte order.
Issues Involved
1. Trademark Infringement: Whether the defendants' use of a deceptively similar trademark and trade dress constitutes trademark infringement of Mokobara's registered trademark.
2. Passing Off: Whether the defendants' actions amount to passing off their goods as those of the plaintiff.
Contentions of the Parties
Plaintiff's Contentions: Mokobara argued that the defendants had copied every single aspect of Mokobara's suitcases, including the unique color combinations, piping, horizontal ridges, placement of the device, yellow-checkered inner-lining with squares bearing the letter 'm', etc. Mokobara claimed that this was done with a dishonest intention to mislead the public into believing that their products were those of Mokobara.
Defendants' Contentions: There is no information available on the specific contentions made by the defendants in this case, as the court passed an ex-parte order.
Reasoning and Analysis
A bench presided by Justice Amit Bansal granted interim relief to Mokobara, restraining the defendants from producing and selling products that are deceptively similar or virtually identical to Mokobara's products. The court observed that the defendants' use of the impugned device and trade dress was confusingly similar to plaintiff's registered trademark and trade dress, and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff's rights.
The court observed that the defendants could not possibly have any plausible justification to adopt the impugned device and trade dress in respect of identical products, except for an ulterior motive to misuse the reputation of Mokobara's registered device and trade dress and thereby pass off their goods as those of Mokobara's goods.
Final Decision
The court passed an ex-parte ad interim order restraining the defendants from producing such products in a style that was deceptively or confusingly similar to that of Mokobara products. The matter will be heard next on October 10, 2025.
Potential Implications
The decision has significant implications for businesses and individuals who own intellectual property rights. It highlights the importance of protecting trademarks and trade dress from infringement and demonstrates the willingness of courts to grant interim relief to prevent irreparable harm to trademark owners.
Law Settled
This order reinforces the principle that trademark infringement can occur when a defendant uses a mark or trade dress that is deceptively similar or virtually identical to a registered trademark. The court's decision highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and preventing unfair competition.
In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Prashant Gupta, Mr. Aadhar Nautiyal and Mr. Karan Singh, Advocates.
