Delhi High Court: In an application under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’) filed by Mattel Inc. for grant of a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from infringing upon the trade mark ‘BARBIE’, the Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J, held that the defendant’s marks were visually, phonetically and conceptually identical to that of the plaintiff’s and amounted to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade mark. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants from using the ‘BARBIE’ trade mark till further notice.
Background
The plaintiff company, Mattel Inc., founded in 1945, revolutionized the toy market through several of its globally recognized brands like Barbie, Hot Wheels, Fisher-Price, Uno and Scrabble. Mattel had coined and adopted the trade mark ‘BARBIE’ in 1959 which has since evolved into a multifaceted brand symbolizing imagination, aspiration and inspiration for generations. With widespread media coverage, high-profile collaborations, and massive advertising campaigns, ‘BARBIE’ trade mark has built colossal goodwill globally.
Mattel had introduced the ‘BARBIE’ doll in India as early as 1987 and has since been continuously and extensively using the trademark BARBIE across a wide range of goods and services, not limited to toys. The word/logo BARBIE / 
The BARBIE brand enjoys immense goodwill and consumer recognition. Its products, ranging from dolls to apparel, cosmetics, accessories, and electronics, bottles, lunch boxes etc. are widely available across leading Indian e-commerce platforms.
Defendant 1 was using the impugned BARBIE/ 
Mattel had contended that by using pink stylization and a similar logo, Defendant 1 was deliberately attempting to ride on Mattel’s goodwill and reputation. According to Mattel, such use amounted to trade mark infringement and passing off, as it created a strong likelihood of confusion, dilution, and false association with its brand.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that BARBIE is the dominant prefix in the impugned marks and visually, phonetically and conceptually identical and the adoption of the same by Defendant 1 was without any reasonable explanation.
The Court further noted that the Defendant 1 had adopted this famous mark so as to create an initial interest in the mind of the consumer with respect to the products of the defendant and to capture the customer’s attention. The Court further stated that he initial interest confusion test as deliberated upon in Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784 by a Division Bench of the Court is squarely attracted in the facts of this case.
Thus, the Court held that Mattel had made out a prima facie case in its favour, the balance of convenience is its favour and it was likely to suffer grave and irreparable harm in case an ad-interim injunction was not granted.
Accordingly, the court restrained Defendant 1 and all persons action on its behalf from using the impugned marks or any other marks deceptively similar to Mattel’s registered BARBIE trade mark. Defendant 1 was further directed to remove and takedown all their social media pages, profiles and accounts and websites containing the impugned marks.
[Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah, C.S. (COMM) No. 948 of 2025, decided on 8-9-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Shwetasree Majumder, Prithvi Singh, Prithvi Gulati, Ritwik Marwaha, Advocates