Delhi High Court has granted interim protection to the trademark of “Barbie” owned by Mattel Toys, the India-based subsidiary of the US company Mattel Inc that owns the global Barbie brand. In the case of Mattel Inc v Padum Borah and Ors (2025), the court found that since “Barbie” formed the dominant prefix of the defendant’s mark, it benefitted from creating an initial interest in the minds of consumers due to its similarity with the plaintiff’s mark.
Barbie dolls have been in circulation since the 1950s and have amassed a massive global reputation and goodwill, with more than 1,800 trademark registrations globally.
The issue arose when the defendant tried to register the mark “Barbie” with the line “BARBIE one stop solution for HORECA & foods processing” in August 2024. The defendant is engaged in businesses related to commercial kitchen equipment, event management and catering services. On seeing the application, the plaintiff sent a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant, which went unanswered.
On 4 March 2025, the Trade Marks Registry sent a report to the defendant with objections to its trademark registration application, as it conflicted with the plaintiff’s previously registered mark.
Replying to the objections, the defendant acknowledged the plaintiff’s well-known brand name but insisted that his trademark, used in combination with other expressions, was distinctive and would not cause confusion. The defendant’s businesses were also being promoted online on websites, including the defendant’s own website, which carried the infringing trademark as a domain name. Several other marks – “barbie enterprises”, “barbie hospitality”, “barbie catering” and “barbie kitchen mart” – were also being used by the defendant.
The plaintiff argued that “barbie” formed a large portion of the impugned mark and that the line, in combination with which the mark is being attempted to be registered, is barely readable in the manner it had been put next to the words “BARBIE”. They also argued that the pink style of the letter “B” in their mark and similar logo was an attempt to take undue advantage of the plaintiff’s goodwill in the market.
The defendant had been informed of the court proceedings but was not present on the day of the order. Delhi High Court agreed with the plaintiff’s submission and noted that the plaintiff’s mark was registered in the same class of goods for which the defendant was attempting to register its mark. It also noted that the adoption of the mark by the defendant was without any explanation.
The court concluded that it was clear that the defendant had adopted the famous mark to capture consumers’ interest.
This conclusion was based on the “initial interest confusion test”, as deliberated in Under Armour Inc v Anish Agarwal and Anr (2025). As per the test, the initial impression in the mind of the consumer holds significance, even if later on the confusion is clarified, making it clear that the two brands and marks are not related to each other.
The court, in its interim protection, restrained the defendants from using the impugned marks in any manner and ordered them to take down all material and domains using the marks. The matter is still ongoing and will next be heard on 10 March 2026.
