Delhi High Court Curbs 'Mechanical' Externment Orders, Upholds 'WOW MOMO' Trademark in Key Rulings - 2025-10-21

Delhi High Court Curbs 'Mechanical' Externment Orders, Upholds 'WOW MOMO' Trademark in Key Rulings

New Delhi – In a series of significant pronouncements, the Delhi High Court has delivered crucial judgments reinforcing individual liberties against arbitrary state action and clarifying nuanced principles of trademark law. In one case, the court quashed a "mechanical" externment order, emphasizing that such extraordinary measures cannot be used to curtail personal liberty and livelihood on unsubstantiated grounds. In another, a division bench provided robust protection to the "WOW MOMO" brand, delving into the concepts of "idea infringement" and the "family of marks" doctrine to grant an injunction against "WOW BURGER."

---

Externment Orders: A Shield for Society, Not a Sword Against Liberty

In a ruling that serves as a vital check on the executive's power, Justice Neena Bansal Krishna set aside an externment order issued by the Delhi Police and upheld by the Lieutenant Governor. The case, MAHESH SHRIVASTVA @ JEEVA v. STATE (GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI) , involved a man who, despite being acquitted in seven of eight criminal cases (and paying a minor fine in the eighth), was ordered to be externed from the city.

The Court underscored that externment is an "extraordinary measure" intended to maintain law and order, not a tool for punishing individuals who have been cleared by the judicial process. Justice Krishna observed that such orders severely impact fundamental rights. “The consequences of such an order can not only prevent a person from staying in his house along with his family members during such period, but may also result in deprivation of his right to livelihood,” the judgment noted.

Background of the Case

The petitioner, Mahesh Shrivastava, argued that he had been living peacefully as an event supervisor since 2018. He claimed that the externment proceedings were a result of hostility from local criminals and some police officials, stemming from his past role as a police informer. The police, conversely, contended that he was a "dangerous criminal" with a history spanning 18 years, posing a significant threat to public safety.

Judicial Scrutiny of Evidence and Procedure

Justice Krishna's ruling was grounded in a meticulous examination of the evidence—or lack thereof. The Court found that the externment order was based almost entirely on a list of past criminal cases in which the petitioner had been acquitted. Crucially, the bench noted there was no evidence to suggest that these acquittals were secured by threatening witnesses or by any other illicit means attributable to the petitioner.

The Court firmly rejected the notion that a history of registered cases, without convictions, could justify such a drastic measure. “No evidence has been produced to show that he is a person so desperate or dangerous that he is hazardous to the community if allowed to be at large... Merely from the list of Cases, it cannot be concluded that he is habituated to intimidate or commit affray or breach of peace,” the Court declared.

The judgment heavily criticized the administrative order as being "mechanical," stating it merely reproduced the language of Section 47 of the Delhi Police Act without establishing the specific circumstances required by the statute. The Court found the police's claims to be "bald assertions not supported by any specific" evidence.

Implications for Legal Practice

This judgment serves as a powerful precedent for challenging externment orders that lack a solid evidentiary foundation. It reinforces the principle that administrative actions, especially those curtailing fundamental rights under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution, are subject to rigorous judicial review. For criminal law practitioners, this decision provides clear grounds to argue against orders based on stale cases or a history of acquittals, demanding that the state provide fresh, cogent evidence of a continuing threat to public order. The Court's final admonition is a stark reminder to law enforcement agencies: “While it cannot be overlooked that an onerous task of maintaining law and order and peace in Society, rests on the Police, but at the same time, it cannot be used to deprive persons of their liberty and right to livelihood, on the grounds which are totally unsubstantiated.”

---

Trademark Tussle: The Power of 'WOW' and the 'Family of Marks'

In a significant trademark dispute, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court comprising Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla granted an interim injunction in favour of the popular restaurant chain "WOW MOMO" against a Hong Kong-based company's use of the name "WOW BURGER." The ruling in WOW MOMO FOODS PRIVATE LIMITED v. WOW BURGER & ANR overturned a single-judge decision and provided an insightful analysis of deceptive similarity, idea infringement, and the family of marks doctrine.

The Heart of the Dispute

Wow Momo Foods Private Limited, having built a substantial brand around the "WOW MOMO" mark and its variations like "WOW CHINA" and "WOW CHICKEN," sought to prevent the respondent from using "WOW BURGER" for a similar fast-food venture. The respondent argued that "WOW" is a common laudatory word over which the appellant could claim no monopoly.

Idea Infringement and Distinctiveness

The Division Bench disagreed, dissecting the unique construction of the appellant's mark. The Court reasoned that "WOW" is not an adjective and is not descriptive of the food item. Instead, it is an exclamation. The distinctiveness, the Court held, arises from the novel idea of combining this exclamation with the name of a food item to convey superior quality.

“The idea of conveying the message that the food dispensed by it is of optimum quality by combining, with the name of the food item such as MOMO or DIMSUMS, the exclamation WOW would stand replicated if the respondent were to use WOW BURGER,” the bench explained. This replication of a unique marketing concept, the Court termed, is a form of "idea infringement," which contributes to the likelihood of confusion among consumers.

Family of Marks Doctrine

A crucial element of the Court's reasoning was the application of the "family of marks" doctrine. The bench recognized that Wow Momo had established a series of marks where "WOW" was the common prefix, followed by a food-related term. This consistent usage had imbued the prefix "WOW" with a secondary meaning in the context of fast-food, linking it to the appellant's brand family.

The Court stated, “The use of any mark, by a third person, by combining the prefix WOW with the name of a food item, would clearly result in confusion and conveying an impression to the average consumer, that the mark is yet another in the family of the marks belonging to the appellant.”

This finding is pivotal for businesses that build their brand identity around a common root element across different product lines. It affirms that the protective umbrella of a trademark can extend beyond a single registered mark to the entire conceptual family it represents.

Consumer Perception and Deceptive Similarity

Ultimately, the test for infringement boiled down to the perspective of a consumer with "average intelligence and imperfect reflection." The bench concluded that such a consumer, familiar with "WOW MOMO," would likely presume an association upon encountering "WOW BURGER," given the identical prefix and the common field of business. This "presumption of association," under Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, is sufficient to constitute infringement.

This judgment provides a significant victory for brand owners who strategically cultivate a family of marks. It clarifies that even common words, when used as a distinctive and unifying element across a product portfolio, can acquire a level of protection that prevents competitors from adopting a confusingly similar branding strategy. For IP lawyers, this decision strengthens the arsenal for protecting brand ecosystems and combating infringement that relies on replicating a successful branding idea rather than just a specific word or logo.