Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by House of Masaba, (‘the plaintiff’), to restrain the defendants from using the trade mark ‘MASABA’ for the identical goods and services as that of the plaintiff, i.e., retail of apparels and accessories for men and women, Amit Bansal, J., restrained the defendants and all the others acting on behalf of the defendants from using the impugned trade marks “MASABA”/ “MASABA COUTURE”/ 
and Instagram handles — “masabacoutureofficial.co” and “masabacouture.in” or any other trade mark/trade name as might be identical to or was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade marks.
Background
The case set up in the plaint was that the plaintiff was the brainchild of Masaba Gupta, who founded ‘House of Masaba’ in the year 2009, which was a fashion brand engaged in the business of bridal lehngas, jewellery, sarees, gowns, apparels for men, kurta, shirts, designer clothing etc.
The plaintiff was a registered proprietor of the trade mark ‘
’ and ‘
’ in different classes. The first registration of the plaintiff for the trade mark ‘
’ dates back to year 2010. It was stated that all the registrations of the plaintiff were legal, valid and subsisting in India.
It was averred that given the widespread sale, promotional and advertising activities undertaken by the plaintiff, the trade mark “MASABA”, “HOUSE OF MASABA” and “
” had become the single source identifier of the plaintiff and its goods and services. That in the aforesaid circumstances, the plaintiff had the sole and exclusive rights in and over the trade mark “MASABA”.
It was further averred that the use of any mark identical with or similar to the trade marks “MASABA”, “HOUSE OF MASABA” and “
”, for similar goods and services would amount to infringement of the plaintiff’s trade marks, passing off and unfair trade practice.
It was the case of the plaintiff that in and around first week of February 2025, the plaintiff came across the impugned Instagram pages of the defendants “masabacoutureofficial.co” and “masabacouture.in”, wherein the defendants were using the impugned trade mark ‘MASABA’/ ‘MASABA COUTURE’/ ‘
’ for identical goods and services.
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court stated that the case set up in the plaint was that the defendants’ adoption and use of the impugned trade marks was mala fide and dishonest as the defendants were misleading the consumers by drawing association with the plaintiff and the same was detrimental to the distinctive character of the plaintiff’s trademark ‘MASABA’.
Considering the submissions, the Court stated that the plaintiff had made a prima facie case in its favour. This Court stated that the balance of convenience was in the plaintiff’s favour and against the defendants. The plaintiff was likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the interim order was not granted in the plaintiff’s favour.
Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendants, their proprietor, partners, as the case may be, principal officers, servants, retailers, agents and all others acting for and on behalf of the defendants from using the impugned trade marks “MASABA”/ “MASABA COUTURE”/ 
and Instagram handles — “masabacoutureofficial.co” and “masabacouture.in” or any other trade mark/trade name as might be identical to or was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trade marks.
Further, the intermediary Instagram on whose platform the impugned pages of the defendants were available, were also directed to, on receipt of communication from the plaintiff, take down such pages and provide the complete contact details of the defendants available with them to the plaintiff.
[House of Masaba Lifestyle (P) Ltd. v. Masabacoutureoffcial.co, CS(COMM) 143 of 2025, decided on 18-02-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: Ankur Sangal, Ankit Arvind, Shashwat Rakshit and Shaurya Pandey, Advocates.
