Delhi High Court Restrains Use of ‘Barbie’ Trademarks in Commercial Kitchen Equipment, Event Management, and Catering Services; Orders Removal of References from Social Media
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, granting relief to Mattel Inc., has restrained the use of “Barbie” trademarks for commercial kitchen equipment, event management, and catering services. Acting under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code and the Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court held that Mattel had established a prima facie case of infringement and passing off. The order prohibits the use of marks including “Barbie,” “Barbie One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing,” “Barbie Enterprises,” “Barbie Hospitality,” “Barbie Catering,” and “Barbie Kitchen Mart,” and directs suspension of infringing domains pending the suit.
Mattel, Inc., the plaintiff, filed a commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against trademark infringement and passing off, concerning its well-known registered trademark ‘BARBIE’. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant, Padum Borah, had dishonestly adopted several marks containing the dominant prefix ‘BARBIE’ with generic suffixes such as ‘ENTERPRISES’, ‘HOSPITALITY’, ‘CATERING’, and ‘KITCHEN MART’. According to the plaintiff, these marks were deceptively similar to its iconic ‘BARBIE’ trademark.
The plaintiff’s case recounted its historical use of the trademark ‘BARBIE’, which was coined and adopted in 1959. The brand had since acquired worldwide recognition, with more than 1,800 trademark registrations across 100+ countries. In India, Mattel introduced the Barbie doll in 1987 and expanded the brand into toys, apparel, cosmetics, accessories, electronics, and other goods, including India-specific product lines such as Bollywood Barbie (2009) and Colours of India series (2018). It claimed significant sales and marketing expenditures in India.
In August 2024, Mattel discovered that the defendant had filed a trademark application for the device mark ‘BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA & Foods Processing’ under Class 21, on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis. A cease-and-desist notice was issued on 20 August 2024 but remained unanswered. The Trade Marks Registry raised objections to the defendant’s application in March 2025, citing conflict with Mattel’s prior registrations. In its reply dated 3 April 2025, the defendant admitted that Barbie was a well-known brand but argued that its use in connection with kitchen and catering equipment was distinct.
Upon investigation, Mattel found that the defendant was actively using multiple marks incorporating the ‘BARBIE’ prefix on commercial kitchen equipment, event management, and catering services. These were promoted through websites barbieenterprise.com and barbieenterprise.in, and third-party portals such as IndiaMart. The plaintiff submitted evidence showing the infringing marks’ use, arguing that the defendant’s actions were intended to ride on Mattel’s goodwill.
The Court noted that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘BARBIE’ and has been using it since 1959. It recorded that “the Plaintiff’s trademark BARBIE, as noticed above, is a coined term.” The Court observed that Mattel held registrations for the word mark ‘BARBIE’ in Class 21, the same class in which the defendant sought registration.
Referring to the defendant’s submissions to the Trade Marks Registry, the Court stated: “The Defendant No. 1 in its reply dated 03.04.2025 to the Examination Report… admitted that the Plaintiff’s trademark BARBIE is a famous and well-known brand name, while simultaneously seeking to rely on the defence that the Class-21 in which the Defendant No. 1 has applied for registration is entirely distinct from that of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark BARBIE.”
The Court further recorded: “However, it is a matter of record that Plaintiff’s trademark BARBIE (wordmark) is registered in Class 21, for which the Defendant has applied.” It added that the defendant’s reliance on by-lines accompanying the mark could not establish distinctiveness because “on a perusal of the said mark of the Defendant No. 1 and the other impugned marks, it is apparent that BARBIE is the dominant prefix and it is visually, phonetically and conceptually identical.”
The Court stated: “It is apparent that the Defendant No. 1 has 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 Bench applied the “initial interest confusion” test as discussed in Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal and Anr. (2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784), holding that the facts of the case were directly covered.
Concluding its observations, the Court noted: “In the considered opinion of this Court, the Plaintiff has been able to make out a prima facie case in its favour. The balance of convenience is also in favour of the Plaintiff and against the Defendant No. 1. The Plaintiff is likely to suffer grave irreparable harm in case an ad-interim injunction is not granted.”
The Court issued a series of interim directions in detail. It recorded that “Defendant No. 1, its employees, servants, agents, representatives and/or others acting for and on its behalf are restrained from using the impugned marks BARBIE, BARBIE One Stop Solution For HORECA & Foods Processing, BARBIE ENTERPRISES, BARBIE HOSPITALITY, BARBIE CATERING, and BARBIE KITCHEN MART, and/or any other deceptively similar variant/s of the Plaintiff’s registered BARBIE trademarks, in domain names, websites, social media handle names, hashtags, email addresses, bank accounts or any business papers, etc. or in any other manner which amounts to infringement of the Plaintiff’s BARBIE trademarks as listed in the present application, or passing off the services and business of Defendant No. 1 as that of the Plaintiff.”
“Defendant No. 1 is directed to remove/takedown all their social media pages/profiles/accounts including but not limited to Facebook, Instagram and LinkedIn, referring to the marks BARBIE One Stop Solution For HORECA & Foods Processing, BARBIE ENTERPRISES, BARBIE HOSPITALITY, BARBIE CATERING, and BARBIE KITCHEN MART, and/or any other deceptively similar variant/s of the Plaintiff’s trademark BARBIE.”
“Defendant Nos. 2 and 3 are directed to lock and suspend the domain names barbieenterprise.com and barbieenterprise.in respectively, during the pendency of the suit proceedings.”
The Court also ordered issuance of notice to the defendants through all permissible modes upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing. It directed that reply to the injunction application be filed within four weeks and rejoinder, if any, within four weeks thereafter. It additionally ordered compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks from the date of the order.
The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (J) on 16 October 2025 and before the Court on 10 March 2026.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Petitioner: Ms. Shwetasree Majumder, Mr. Prithvi Singh, Mr. Prithvi Gulati, and Mr. Ritwik Marwaha, Advocates
Case Title: Mattel, Inc. v. Padum Borah and Ors.
Case Number: CS(COMM) 948/2025
Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora
