- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court Orders FranchiseByte To Take Down Wow! Momo Content From Its Website
Delhi High Court Orders FranchiseByte To Take Down Wow! Momo Content From Its Website
The single-judge bench stated that the defendant tried to defraud the public
The Delhi High Court has restrained FranchiseByte from using the trademark ‘Wow! Momo’ and ordered it to take down all related videos and content from its website and YouTube channel.
The bench of Justice C Hari Shankar passed the order on noting that by using the trademark, the defendant not only infringed on the trademark but also defrauded people.
Alleging trademark infringement, Wow! Momo had moved the High Court. It claimed that FranchiseByte was misrepresenting and defrauding the public by trying to portray a relationship between Wow! Momo and itself.
FranchiseByte apprised the Court that it held itself only as an agency, which could provide franchises for Wow! Momo.
However, Wow! Momo argued that it did not have any franchise model and ran the stores on its own.
Thus, the Court restrained FranchiseByte from publishing any video reflecting the Wow! Momo trademark. It was also ordered to take down all videos referring to the plaintiff.
The bench stated, “The defendant is further directed, in its reply, to disclose all persons to whom, by the above method, it has granted purported franchises of the plaintiff, as well as the amounts that it has earned from such activities.”
Wow Momo Foods Private Limited was represented by Khaitan & Co’s partner Ankur Sangal along with senior associate Ankit Arvind and associates Kiratraj Sadana and Nidhi Pathak.