The fashion industry in India has seen an exceptional growth in recent years, with several designers and brands emerging as key players. One of the biggest brands amongst these is Masaba Gupta’s ‘House of Masaba’ under Masaba Lifestyle Private Limited (MLPL). Known for its innovative style and vibrant collection, although the design label has created a niche for itself in the Indian market, it has not been immune to attempts at theft of brand identity and trademark infringement.
Recently, MLPL found itself entangled in a trademark infringement dispute raising crucial questions about protection of trademarks, brand identity and the boundaries of intellectual property rights in the fashion industry. The present case provides interesting insight into the legal framework surrounding an industry where brand identity is at the core of the service provided and products.
This article aims to provide a summary on the case while understanding the concern surrounding ‘brand identity protection’ in India and the mechanisms in place to protect the same.
I. Case Brief
MLPL filed for registration of the trademark “Masaba” and “House of Masaba” in the year 2010, thereby asserting exclusive rights to these marks and ensuring its protection. Over time, the trademarks have become synonymous with high-quality fashion in the industry, enabling the brand to cultivate a distinct image, which is now firmly entrenched in the public consciousness. As a result, MLPL stands out in the competitive landscape of Indian fashion, with the brand enjoying a reputation for originality, luxury, and cultural relevance.
However, recently when MLPL became aware of a potential infringement of its intellectual property by the operators of masabacoutureofficial.co (“MC”) who were using MLPL’s trademarks on Instagram to sell counterfeit fashion products utilizing the name “Masaba”, MLPL filed a trademark infringement suit against them before the Delhi High Court. In its suit, MLPL sought immediate legal intervention by way of an interim injunction against MC, by contending that MC’s use of the trademark especially to sell clothing items was not only unauthorized but was also causing harm to MLPL’s business by misleading the consumers of the brand.
II. Delhi HC’S Order & Legal Analysis Of The Case
The central issue in the case appeared to be whether MC’s utilization of its name and logo could cause consumer confusion. Trademark law in India is primarily designed to protect the rights of brands and businesses by ensuring that their trademarks/logos or tradenames remain distinctive and are not diluted by entities that are similar in nature or practice. In the present case, MLPL argued that the use of the name ‘Masaba’ by MC could cause consumers of MLPL to believe that MC and MLPL were in some way associated and could lead to monetary loss to MLPL.
The Trademarks Act, 1999 (“Act”), provides protection to registered trademarks in India and to secure such protection under the Act, a brand must prove that its trademark is unique, distinctive and has gained a level of recognition in the market. In the present case MLPL had to establish its market presence in order to display its brand identity and reputation, before talking to the impact the unauthorized usage of the trademark by MC could have on the brand.
Justice Amit Bansal of the Delhi HC noted that MC had no legal claim to the trademark and had not obtained any permission from MLPL to use it. Further, it was observed that the use of the trademark was done with malicious intent to mislead the general public into believing that there was some sort of an association between the two brands.
In light of this, the Delhi HC granted interim relief to the MLPL aiming to safeguard the brand’s identity and prevent customer confusion caused by the unauthorized use of the trademark by MC. Additionally, the HC also directed Instagram to remove the impugned accounts associated with MC and utilizing MLPL’s trademark/tradename. The next hearing on the case is scheduled for July 23, 2025.
III. Deceptive Similarity & Its Implications
Given the concerns highlighted in the present case, we understand that the main issue at hand remains that of ‘deceptive similarity’ and its implications on a brand in trademark infringement cases. Deceptive similarity refers to when a trademark of a brand closely resembles an existing trademark of another leading to confusion amongst the consumers of the existing brand.
The primary goal of deceptive similarity is to mislead the public and gain unfair advantage by relying on the existing brand’s reputation and identity in the market. This concept may generally be assessed through three main elements: visual, phonetic, and conceptual similarities. It enables an infringer to exploit the established brand’s reputation and goodwill for their own gain.
Such tactics, which have become rampant recently, not only make it difficult for consumers to distinguish between the two brands but also damage the reputation and goodwill that in the present case MLPL has built over time. This can also lead to a loss of consumer trust, diminished market value, and have a long-term harm on the original brand’s standing in the industry.
IV. Conclusion
The present case highlights the importance of protecting intellectual property rights in the digital age when unauthorized exploitation of a brand’s intellectual property can take place rapidly given the increasing number of online platforms. MLPL’s attention and swift movement for legal recourse was ultimately the reason it was able to protect its brand identity which had been established over the course of years.
However, deceptive similarity as a concept, is not new to brands in the industry with various cases already existing on the issue. For example, in a previous case, Cadbury was seen taking legal action against Neeraj Food Products for selling items with packaging that was strikingly similar to its own leading to consumer confusion and impacting the overall brand image of ‘Cadbury”. Another notable example is the Louis Vuitton vs. Louis Vuiton Dak case, where a South Korean fried chicken restaurant was fined a staggering 14.5 million for using the name, logo, and packaging that closely mirrored the luxury designer brand. It is therefore evident that for businesses, especially in the fashion and media industry, the present case serves as a reminder to vigilantly monitor the use of their trademarks online and take prompt legal action against infringement.
The legal proceedings involving MLPL depict the various niche challenges that brands in today’s day and age face in relation to protection of their intellectual property, especially given the vastly expanding reach of media and online commerce. As the case of MLPL progresses, it will be interesting to see how the decision in the matter impacts all future trademark disputes in the country.
Authors: Dayita Panicker & Sakshi Naik