Bombay High Court: In a trade mark infringement suit between the applicant, Metro Brands Limited and the defendant, MetBrands Private Limited, a Single Judge Bench of Arif S. Doctor, J., opined that prima facie, the goods and services being sold under the marks, METBRANDS/
(‘the impugned marks‘), by the defendant were deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s registered marks, 
and 
(‘the house marks’) and 
and 
(‘the trade marks’).
The Court thus restrained and prohibited the defendant from infringing upon the applicant’s marks by directly or indirectly using, manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising, publishing, displaying, stocking, or in any manner on any products bearing the trade marks/trade name/label/packaging/trade dress/theme of ‘METRO’ and its variants, more particularly the impugned marks, including but not limited to ‘METBRANDS’, and the graphic representations thereof and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered mark ‘METRO’.
Background
The applicant was in the business of manufacturing and retailing of footwear, bags, accessories, leather goods, and other allied and cognate goods and services and had been carrying on business since the year 1955 and had immense goodwill. The applicant had a strong business in all categories of footwear, i.e., premium, affordable luxury and value lines and in fashion, lifestyle, casual and sports footwear.
The applicant was the registered proprietor of marks, 
and 
(‘the registered house marks’) and marks, 
and 
(‘the trade marks’). Whereas the defendant was incorporated on 8-11-2021 and was in the business of designing, manufacturing, and distribution of clothing, headgear, and footwear (‘the impugned goods and services’), under the name METBRANDS/
.
Counsel for the applicant stated that the defendant’s impugned marks were deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered marks and that the defendant had also started offering the impugned goods and services for sale on Amazon. It was submitted that the defendant was attempting to pass off the impugned goods and services and wrongly profiteered from the applicant’s goodwill and reputation by using the name METBRANDS/
since it was only in or about December 2021, when the applicant decided to go public by floating an IPO, that the defendant commences the use of the name METBRANDS/
. The defendant, until that time, had been operating and offering goods and services under the name ‘METRENDS’.
The applicant had addressed a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant calling upon to cease and desist from offering the impugned goods and services for sale under the impugned marks, however, the defendant did not adhere to the notice and thus, the present suit was filed.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court opined that the applicant had made out a case for ad interim reliefs and there was no doubt about the applicant’s name and reputation in the field of sale and supply of leather goods, particularly in shoes. The Court noted that the applicant had huge turnover and under its umbrella, marketed and sold various international footwear brands, and was the owner of the registered house marks and a registered proprietor of the trade marks.
The Court opined that prima facie, the impugned goods and services being sold under the impugned marks by the defendant were deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s registered marks, and the defendant despite being served twice, chose not to appear before this Court.
The Court thus passed a temporary injunction in the applicant’s favour, thereby restraining and prohibiting the defendant from infringing upon the applicant’s marks by directly or indirectly using, manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising, publishing, displaying, stocking, or in any manner on any products bearing the said marks/trade marks/trade name/label/packaging/trade dress/theme of ‘METRO’ and its variants, more particularly the impugned marks, including but not limited to ‘METBRANDS’, and the graphic representations thereof and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the applicant’s registered mark ‘METRO’.
The matter would next be listed on 20-6-2025.
[Metro Brands Ltd. v. MetBrands (P) Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 12065 of 2025, decided on 30-4-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Counsel a/w Rashmin Khandekar, Alhan Kayser, Prateek Pansare, Hitisha Patel and Varsha Vasave i/by Avesh Kayser for the Applicant/Plaintiff.
