Mokobara Secures Interim Relief in Trade Dress Infringement Case Against Greenland

Introduction

In the fashion and lifestyle sectors, there is seen a rapid growth of design centric brands which has their brand identity as their major differentiator. These brands invest significant time, capital and effort into designing unique products and packaging to survive the competition in the market.

Mokobara by Mokobara Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd. is one such brand in the Indian Luggage industry which has efficiently carved a niche of itself in terms of premium design and distinct product. The luxury travel accessories market is the relevant market of the brand. The products of this brand are a success not only because of the quality of its products but also to the visual branding elements are what makes it instantly recognizable. They have several trademarks and tradedress registered in its name which including a rectangular device mark, specific colour schemes, internal yellow checkered linings marked with the letter ‘m’, neon piping, and curved ridges on the suitcase bodies.

Mokobara’s success came with a risk of imitation. In the end April 2025 it discovered that another entity bearing the brand name ‘Greenland’ was trying to imitate the brand and style of mokobara. Mokobara moved to Delhi High Court seeking immediate protection from deliberative and deceptive infringement of its brand name.

Legal Issues

1.     Whether the rights of the plaintiff was infringed under Section 28 of the Trademark Act, 1999.

2.     Whether there was any infringement of trademark of the plaintiff’s trademark and tradedress under section 29 of the Trademark Act,1999.

3.     Whether there was any passing off of the defendants’ products along with the plaintiff’s product.

Summary of the case

Mokobara Lifestyle private Limited. is a company operating in the premium luggage and travel accessories market through its brand name Mokobara. It filed a commercial suit in the Delhi High court against Fazal Mohamed Yakub Patka and others regarding the defendant’s deceptive use of the design of the plaintiff under the brand name ‘Greenland’. Mokobara claimed that the defendants dealt with luggage bags having nearly indistinguishable products from that of tradedress. The plaintiff had its unique visual identity that was registered and included a rectangular device mark and several distinct design elements: bold colour combinations, neon-coloured piping, a yellow-checkered interior lining with the letter "m", and horizontal ridges that curve along the suitcase surface.

After discovering the deceptive products of the defendant on its website of the defendant, the plaintiff investigated and confirmed the allegation by placing an order delivered on 3^rd May 2025. The three defendants, defendant 1, defendant 2 and defendant 3 were partners of a partnership firm, M/s American Leather Works and defendant 4 was a sole proprietor owned by defendant 1. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants had deliberately adopted the impugned device mark and trade dress with the dishonest intention of passing off their goods as Mokobara’s and taking unfair advantage of its established goodwill.

 To know more about this you can followthe link below:

Arguments

Plaintiffs Arguments

1.     The plaintiff asserted its ownership of trademark and trade dress and plead the court to prevent infringement of its rights over them.

2.     The plaintiff claimed deliberate and deceptive imitation of its products by defendants.

3.     The plaintiff argued that allowing the defendants to continue selling the infringing products would cause irreparable harm to its brand, confuse consumers, dilute its identity, and damage its business reputation.

Defendants Arguments

None of the defendants appeared in the court, despite being served with advance notice.

Courts Analysis

The court after reviewing the pleadings, mokobara had made a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off. The visual comparison of the plaintiff’s and defendants’ products led the court to conclude that the impugned logo and trade dress used by the defendants were nearly identical to that of the plaintiffs.

The court held that since both the parties were in the same industry, the act of the defendant can be seen as a dishonest intention to pass off its products as that of the plaintiff. It expressed concerns that if the defendant is allowed to operate with the design it might cause irreparable damage to the plaintiff and its products.

Judgement of the court

On the basis of the above observations, the court issued an ex parte interim injunction which prohibited the defendants from using the impugned device mark or any other deceptively similar version of that of the plaintiff. It also prohibited the defendant from indulging in any kind of business activity that could mislead consumers into believing that they are anywhere associated with the brand Mokobara. The court scheduled the matter for further hearing on 10th October 2025.

Conclusion

This case serves as a precedent for cases that protects the visual identity and design aesthetics of consumer brands. This case reinforces that the visual elements go beyond logos, the law also protects shape, colour schemes, and packaging.

Ultimately, this case reflects the importance of strategic IP protection in modern commerce.