Introduction:

The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favour of House Of Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited, the renowned fashion brand founded by Masaba Gupta, in a trademark infringement case. The suit was filed against certain Instagram pages and websites that were allegedly misusing the brand’s trademarks, ‘Masaba’ and ‘House of Masaba.’ The plaintiff contended that these unauthorised entities were misleading consumers by drawing a false association with the brand and thereby diluting its distinctiveness. Justice Amit Bansal ruled in favour of the plaintiff, restraining the defendants from using the impugned trademarks and ordering Instagram to take down the infringing handles.

Plaintiff’s Submissions:

The plaintiff, House Of Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited, asserted that it has been using the ‘Masaba’ trademark since 2009 in connection with high-end fashion, including bridal wear, jewellery, designer apparel, and accessories. The company registered its trademark in 2010 and has built a strong brand reputation through extensive sales, promotional campaigns, and advertising efforts. It was argued that the defendants had deliberately adopted identical or deceptively similar trademarks—such as ‘Masaba Couture’—with malicious intent to mislead consumers and unfairly benefit from the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s brand. The plaintiff emphasised that such unauthorised usage was detrimental to the distinctiveness of the ‘Masaba’ mark and caused significant harm to its business interests.

The plaintiff further pointed out that the defendants had registered domain names such as ‘masabacoutureofficial.co’ and ‘masabacouture. In,’ which falsely suggested an affiliation with the well-known brand. The unauthorised Instagram pages operated under similar deceptive names, exacerbating the risk of consumer confusion. It was submitted that the unauthorised adoption of the ‘Masaba’ mark amounted to trademark infringement, passing off, and unfair trade practices. The plaintiff also sought immediate action to prevent further dilution of its brand.

Defendant’s Submissions:

The defendants, who were absent from the initial hearing, were expected to file their responses at a later stage. However, based on preliminary observations, the court found that the defendants’ actions appeared to be prima facie dishonest. The defendants had neither obtained permission from the plaintiff to use the trademarks nor did they have any legitimate claim over the ‘Masaba’ name. Their unauthorised use of similar domain names and Instagram handles suggested an attempt to ride on the plaintiff’s established reputation.

The court noted that no evidence was presented by the defendants to justify their use of the ‘Masaba’ mark or to refute the plaintiff’s claims. Given the clear case of trademark infringement, the balance of convenience was found to be in favour of the plaintiff. The court concluded that an interim injunction was necessary to prevent irreparable harm to the plaintiff’s brand identity and consumer trust.

Court’s Judgment:

Justice Amit Bansal, in his order, ruled that the plaintiff had successfully established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. The court observed that the defendant’s actions were deceitful and aimed at misleading consumers by falsely associating themselves with the plaintiff’s brand. Emphasising the importance of protecting established trademarks, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants, their proprietors, agents, retailers, and all associated individuals from using the impugned trademarks ‘MASABA’ and ‘MASABA COUTURE’ or any other deceptively similar marks.

Additionally, the court directed Instagram to take down the infringing handles ‘masabacoutureofficial.co’ and ‘masabacouture.in’ immediately. Instagram was also instructed to provide the plaintiff with complete contact details of the individuals or entities operating these accounts. The matter has been listed for further hearing on July 23, allowing the defendants to present their case.

This ruling reinforces the legal protection granted to registered trademarks and highlights the judiciary’s proactive stance in curbing brand impersonation and consumer deception in the digital market place.