Delhi High Court Grants Ad-Interim Injunction to Mattel, Inc. in Trademark Infringement Case
Defendant Padum Borah and Others Restrained from Using 'BARBIE' Trademark in Business Activities
In a significant judgment passed by the Delhi High Court on September 8, 2025, Justice Ms. Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora has granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the globally renowned toy manufacturer, Mattel, Inc., against Padum Borah and others. The case revolves around the alleged trademark infringement of Mattel’s registered trademark ‘BARBIE,’ a name synonymous with doll collections and other related products. The plaintiff, Mattel, Inc., claimed that the defendants had been using deceptively similar marks, including 'BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing,' leading to confusion, dilution, and false association with the well-known BARBIE brand.
Mattel, Inc., established in 1945, has been associated with the BARBIE trademark since 1959. The brand enjoys immense goodwill and recognition worldwide, having expanded beyond toys to include apparel, cosmetics, and more. In India, Mattel introduced the BARBIE doll in 1987 and has maintained a robust presence in the market with various India-specific collections.
The court noted that Defendant No. 1, Padum Borah, had applied for a trademark registration under the device mark 'BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing' in Class 21 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice from Mattel, Borah failed to respond, prompting Mattel to seek legal intervention.
Justice Arora observed that the defendants had adopted several BARBIE formative marks by appending generic suffixes such as ENTERPRISE, HOSPITALITY, CATERING, and KITCHEN MART to the dominant BARBIE prefix. This, coupled with the use of similar stylization, suggested an attempt to capitalize on Mattel’s established reputation. The court emphasized that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case with the balance of convenience in its favor, warranting an ad-interim injunction to prevent irreparable harm.
The court's order restrains Defendant No. 1 and associated parties from using the impugned marks across various platforms, including domain names, social media accounts, and business-related documents. Furthermore, domain names such as 'barbieenterprise.com' and 'barbieenterprise.in' are to be locked and suspended by the registrants during the suit proceedings.
The case references principles of initial interest confusion, as elaborated in the Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal and Anr., 2025 SCC Online Del 3784, highlighting the potential for consumer misassociation due to the defendants' actions.
Mattel’s legal counsel successfully argued that the unauthorized use of the BARBIE mark by the defendants posed significant risks to the brand’s integrity and consumer perception. With the next hearing scheduled for March 2026, the court's interim relief serves as a protective measure for Mattel's intellectual property rights.
Bottom Line:
Trademark Law - Plaintiff's registered trademark 'BARBIE' is well-known and enjoys immense goodwill globally. Defendant No. 1's use of deceptively similar marks in connection with services creates a likelihood of confusion, dilution, and false association.
Statutory provision(s):
- - Trade Marks Act, 1999
- - Commercial Courts Act, 2015
- - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, Section 151)
- - Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018
This ruling underscores the judiciary's role in safeguarding established trademarks and preventing misuse that could lead to consumer confusion and brand dilution. The Delhi High Court's decision is a reminder of the stringent protection afforded to well-known trademarks under Indian law.
Mattel, Inc. v. Padum Borah, (Delhi) : Law Finder Doc id # 2786338
