Safiya Malik

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Single Bench of Justice Arif S. Doctor issued an ad interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks. The Court observed that the Plaintiff, a major player in the footwear and accessories industry, has established a prima facie case for interim relief. The injunction remains in force until the next hearing scheduled for 20th June 2025.

The Plaintiff, a well-established manufacturer and retailer of footwear, bags, accessories, and allied goods, has been in business since 1955 and holds significant goodwill with a turnover amounting to Rs. 130,000,000,000. As of December 2024, the Plaintiff operates 895 stores across 203 cities and 31 states in India, including 18 stores in Kerala where the Defendant also conducts business.

Also Read: CCTV Surveillance In Shared Residence Requires Consent Of All Occupants | Supreme Court Dismisses Appeal And Upholds Calcutta High Court Order On Right To Privacy

The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of its house marks, specifically 'METRO BRANDS', as well as other associated trademarks. These marks are widely recognized in the market across various segments, including premium, affordable luxury, and value lines.

The Defendant, MetBrands Private Limited, incorporated on 8th November 2021, engages in the design, manufacture, and distribution of clothing, headgear, and footwear. It was submitted that the Defendant began using the mark 'METBRANDS' only after December 2021, coinciding with the Plaintiff’s Initial Public Offering (IPO). Prior to this, the Defendant operated under the name 'METRENDS'.

Despite being served with notice for the hearing on both 28th April 2025 and the current hearing date, the Defendant failed to appear before the Court. This non-appearance prompted the Court to proceed with the matter and consider the Plaintiff's plea for ad interim reliefs.’

The Plaintiff submitted that the Defendant’s impugned marks, including the name 'METBRANDS', form a part of its corporate identity and are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademarks. It was also brought to the Court’s attention that the Defendant recently started selling its products using the impugned marks on online platforms such as Amazon.

A Cease-and-Desist notice was issued by the Plaintiff, calling upon the Defendant to stop the usage of the impugned marks. However, the Defendant did not comply, leading to the filing of the present suit and the request for urgent interim reliefs.

Justice Arif S. Doctor, after considering the submissions and perusing the record, recorded the following observations: "I find that the Plaintiff has made out a case for ad interim reliefs. There can be no doubt about the Plaintiff’s name and reputation in the field of sale and supply of leather goods, especially in shoes."

The Court noted that the Plaintiff’s substantial turnover and its role in marketing and selling various international footwear brands further solidified its reputation. It was observed: "The Plaintiff is the owner of the registered house marks and is also the registered proprietor of the aforesaid marks. The impugned goods and services being sold under the impugned marks by the Defendant, in my view, are prima facie deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s registered marks."

The Defendant’s failure to appear despite being served twice was also noted. The Court observed: "The Defendant despite being served twice, has chosen not to appear before this Court and refute any of the contentions set out. Hence, the Plaintiff is, in my prima facie view, entitled to ad interim relief in terms of prayer clause (a) till the next date of hearing."

Also Read: This Is Not A Case Of Simple Medical Negligence But A Systematic Attempt To Mint More Money | Gujarat HC Denies Bail To Doctor Accused Of Performing Forced Angioplasties To Claim Govt Funds

The Court granted ad interim relief in the following terms:

"Pending hearing and final disposal, a temporary injunction restraining and prohibiting the Defendant and/or its partners, proprietors, stockists, directors, owners, servants, subordinates, representatives, employees, suppliers, affiliates, agents, distributors, dealers, subsidiaries, franchisees, licensees, assignees, predecessors and/or all persons/entity claiming through them or acting on their behalf, be restrained from infringing upon the said marks of the Plaintiff by directly or indirectly using, manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising, publishing, displaying, stocking or in any manner on any products bearing the said marks/trademarks/trade name/label/packaging/trade dress/theme of METRO and its variants, more particularly the impugned marks, including but not limited to METBRANDS, as well as the graphic representations thereof and/or any other mark identical and/or deceptively similar to the Applicant's registered METRO."

The matter is scheduled for further hearing on 20th June 2025. The Plaintiff has also undertaken to serve a copy of the order to the Defendant once again. The Court made it clear that if the Defendant does not appear on the next date, the present order may be confirmed.

Advocates Representing the Parties:

For the Plaintiff: Mr. Venkatesh Dhond, Senior Counsel, with Mr. Rashmin Khandekar, Mr. Alhan Kayser, Mr. Prateek Pansare, Ms. Hitisha Patel, and Ms. Varsha Vasave, instructed by Avesh Kayser.

Case Title: Metro Brands Limited v. MetBrands Private Limited

Case Number: Interim Application (L) No. 12065 of 2025 in Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 12028 of 2025

Bench: Justice Arif S Doctor

[Read/Download order]