$~51 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 21st January, 2026 + CS(COMM) 252/2019 & I.A. 7074/2019 BENNETT, COLEMAN & COMPANY LIMITED & ANR. .....Plaintiffs Through: Ms. Mamta R. Jha, Mr. Akhil Saxena and Ms. Palak Batra, Advocates. versus SERAPHIC DIVINE BEAUTY PRIVATE LIMITED & ORS. .....Defendants Through: Defendants are ex parte. CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI SINGH JUDGEMENT JYOTI SINGH, J. (ORAL) 1. This suit is filed by the Plaintiffs seeking a decree of permanent injunction restraining Defendants No.1 and 2 and all others acting on their behalf from organizing the impugned event/beauty pageant DIVINE MISS INDIA comprising of Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA with mere addition of the prefix DIVINE and/or operating/owning the website www.divinemissindia.com, amongst other reliefs. 2. Plaintiff No.1 was incorporated on 29.11.1913 and has been since then publishing newspapers, magazines and periodicals. Plaintiff No.2 was incorporated on 16.09.2003 as a result of strategic alliance with Worldwide Channels Investments Limited and Plaintiff No.1 for publishing magazines and newspapers in India and has been publishing a wide range of publications such as Top Gear, Femina (Hindi). In August, 2011 Plaintiff No.1 acquired remaining 50% shares of Plaintiff No.2 and the latter became a fully owned subsidiary of Plaintiff No.1. 3. As stated in the plaint, Plaintiffs belong to Times Group, which has been involved in varieties of businesses such as media and entertainment including radio broadcast, event management, outdoor advertising, television broadcast, publication of newspapers and magazines, internet services etc. Times Group under the trademark TIMES started 180 years ago with the business of publishing newspapers, journals and books and as averred, on the date of filing the suit it had more than 45 dailies and periodicals in 06 languages with 150 editions and over 7000 employees and a combined annual turnover in excess of USD 700 million. 4. It is stated that Plaintiffs are also proprietors of several magazines under various brands covering everything from fashion to lifestyle, current trends to beauty pageants and integrated marketing, some of which are Femina, Filmfare, Home Trends. Through their tremendous goodwill and reputation, Plaintiffs have also forayed into the business of hosting events which are business as well as entertainment related, ranging from summits, conferences to fashion shows and beauty pageants. Times Group organizes and hosts the Filmfare Awards, the Economic Times Awards, to name a few and one of the most iconic events organized by the Plaintiffs is Miss India Pageant, winners of which represent India at the International beauty pageant ‘Miss World’. 5. Plaintiff No.1 adopted the trademark MISS INDIA and has been using the same since 01.01.1964. Plaintiffs have obtained multiple trademark registrations in various classes for the trademark MISS INDIA and its formative trademarks, which are as follows:- 6. The Registrations are stated to be valid and subsisting and renewed from time to time. Earlier, some of the registrations of the trademark ‘FEMINA MISS INDIA’ were granted subject to disclaimers, however, later registration of trademark MISS INDIA was granted without any limitation since the trademark had acquired distinctiveness, owing to long, continuous and extensive use since 1964. Plaintiffs have invested considerable amount of time, efforts and financial resources in building reputation under the mark MISS INDIA, which is evident from the annual revenue figures and annual promotional expenses from 2001 to 2019 as follows:- 7. It is stated that Plaintiffs have diligently protected their intellectual property rights against infringers and have been given favourable orders in several suits and oppositions. Courts have from time to time recognized and affirmed the substantial goodwill and reputation associated with the Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA and its formatives. Details of the various Court orders are illustratively provided in paragraph 23 of the plaint as follows:- 8. As per the Plaintiffs, cause of action for instituting the present suit arose in second week of May, 2019 when Plaintiffs came across Defendants No.1 and 2’s Facebook page https://www.facebook.com/crownmissindia/ where Defendants No.1 and 2 were promoting/advertising the impugned DIVINE MISS INDIA beauty pageant or event. The Facebook page provided the link for the said Defendants’ website www.divinemissindia.com, perusal of which revealed that Defendants No.1 and 2 were providing information of the upcoming beauty pageant and inviting applications from candidates from all places including Delhi. Plaintiffs also came across Defendants No.1 and 2’s pending trademark application for DIVINE MISS INDIA. This prompted the Plaintiffs to file the present suit and vide order dated 14.05.2019, Court granted ex parte ad interim injunction, restraining Defendants No.1 and 2 from organizing any event/beauty pageant using the trademark DIVINE MISS INDIA or any other mark identical or deceptively similar to Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA. Court also directed Defendants No.1 and 2 to delete the domain name www.divinemissindia.com within one week from the date of the order and issued summons to them. 9. Defendants No.1 and 2 were served but failed to file the written statements and vide order dated 20.12.2019 their right to file written statements was closed by the learned Registrar, who also took note of their non-appearance on the said date despite repeated calls as also their non-appearance on the earlier date. On 08.01.2020 Defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte. Defendant No.3/GoDaddy LLC and Defendant No.4/GoDaddy India Domains & Hosting Services Pvt. Ltd. were deleted from the array of parties. Later, Defendant No.2 filed I.A. No.3328/2022 under Order 9 CPC for setting aside the ex parte order, which was dismissed on 18.05.2022. There was no challenge to this order. Since Defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte, Plaintiffs filed ex parte evidence by way of affidavit of Mr. Kumar Laxmikant, Authorized Signatory of the Plaintiffs. The witness proved the averments in the plaint and exhibited documents as Ex.PW1/1 to Ex.PW1/22. 10. Learned counsel for the Plaintiffs submits that by virtue of registrations in the trademark MISS INDIA and its formatives, Plaintiffs have acquired statutory rights in the trademarks and hence, by virtue of provisions of Section 28 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (1999 Act), they have the exclusive right to use the trademarks and restrain third parties from infringing them. The goodwill and reputation earned by the Plaintiffs under the trademarks is unparalleled as is evident from the revenue and promotional figures given in the plaint. Through several Court orders, Courts have protected the statutory and common law rights of the Plaintiffs and restrained third parties from using the mark MISS INDIA. 11. It is stated that the impugned marks DIVINE MISS INDIA , are structurally, phonetically, visually and conceptually similar to Plaintiffs’ registered trademark MISS INDIA and and mere addition of the prefix ‘DIVINE’ is insufficient to distinguish the rival marks. The test to be applied in determining the deceptive similarity is that of a purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect recollection, who undoubtedly will confuse the impugned marks and will believe that the impugned pageant is another variation of Plaintiffs’ brand. Reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceuticals Laboratories, 1964 SCC OnLine SC 14; Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satya Deo Gupta, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 13; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727; and Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618, to further this plea. 12. It is further argued that the adoption and use of nearly identical mark/domain name by Defendants No.1 and 2 for identical services would inevitably cause confusion and deception amongst the members of the public as also injury to the enviable brand equity, goodwill and reputation enjoyed by trademark MISS INDIA. It is clear that Defendant No.2 wanted to encash on the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs and misrepresent to the public that their pageant has an association with the Plaintiffs and this amounts to passing off. It is further urged that the instant case is a classic case of initial interest confusion, which is a recognized concept, and in this context, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in Under Armour Inc v. Anish Agarwal and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 3784. In this backdrop, learned counsel for the Plaintiffs prays for a decree of injunction against Defendants No.1 and 2, restraining them permanently from infringing the trademark MISS INDIA and its formatives and/or from passing off and also seeks costs of the proceedings while giving up other reliefs, on instructions. 13. Heard learned counsel for the Plaintiffs and examined the submissions made as also the ex parte evidence on record. 14. As noted above, Defendants No.1 and 2 were proceeded ex parte and the application filed by Defendant No.2 for setting aside the ex parte order was dismissed, but this order was not challenged. This suit is predicated on statutory rights emanating from registrations in the mark MISS INDIA and its formatives as also common law rights owing to formidable goodwill and reputation garnered by the Plaintiffs by use of the mark MISS INDIA from 01.01.1964. Mr. Kumar Laxmikant, Authorized Signatory has filed his evidence affidavit and proved Board Resolution dated 15.11.2021 as Ex.PW1/1 and Board Resolution dated 22.08.2018 as Ex.PW1/2. Articles/ Advertisements published in newspapers and magazines pertaining to MISS INDIA pageant since 1964 were proved as Ex.PW1/3 (colly.) and articles of newspapers/dailies/publications providing media coverage to MISS INDIA beauty pageants were exhibited as Ex.PW1/4 (colly.) along with news articles of third party international newspapers etc. as Ex.PW1/5 (colly.). Photographs of Miss India pageant winners from 1965 to 2018 were proved as Ex.PW1/6 (colly.) and internet printouts of Plaintiffs’ websites showing Delhi as venue are Ex.PW1/7 (colly.). Copies of franchise/license agreements between Plaintiff No.1 and international trade organizations holding international beauty pageants were proved as Ex.PW1/8 and sponsorship agreements were proved as Ex.PW1/9. Ex.PW1/10 to Ex.PW1/12 are printouts of Google search results, promotional material and Plaintiffs’ websites/Whois details, respectively. 15. Plaintiffs’ witness has proved the trademarks registrations certificates along with their online status and trademark journals for word mark MISS INDIA as Ex.PW1/13. Orders of the Court restraining third parties from using the mark MISS INDIA were exhibited as Ex.PW1/14. Printout of MCA details of Defendant No.1 was exhibited as Ex.PW1/15 while screenshots and printouts from Defendants No.1 and 2’s website www.divinemissindia.com were exhibited as Ex.PW1/16. Relevant screenshots of Defendants No.1 and 2’s Facebook page as well as from their website showing the manner of use of Plaintiffs’ mark were exhibited as Ex.PW1/18. Screenshot and internet printout of online application form of impugned pageants on Defendants No.1 and 2’s website were exhibited as Ex.PW1/19 and screenshots from impugned website showing ongoing auditions are Ex.PW1/20. Significantly, the witness also proved the online status of trademark application No.4121087 along with refusal order passed by the Registrar of Trade Marks and copies of notices of oppositions as filed in trademark application Nos.4121089, 4121090 and 4121091 along with online status was exhibited as Ex.PW1/21. Ex.PW1/22 are the internet printouts of Form TM-As along with its online status and examination reports for impugned trademarks bearing Nos.4121086, 4121088, 4116264, 4121087, 4121089, 4121090 and 412109. 16. A comparative analysis of the rival marks shows that Defendants No.1 and 2’s impugned trademarks are phonetically, structurally, visually and conceptually similar to Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA and its formative marks. As rightly flagged by learned counsel, addition of prefix DIVINE to MISS INDIA is insufficient to distinguish the rival marks. The test to determine deceptive similarity is one of an unwary purchaser with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. With the deceptive similarity in the rival marks and the services being identical i.e. organization and promotion of beauty pageants, there is no doubt that members of the public will be confused and deceived into believing that the impugned pageant under the impugned marks has an association with the Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA along with its formative marks are duly registered and therefore, Plaintiffs have acquired a statutory right to use the mark MISS INDIA with its formatives exclusively as also to restrain third parties from infringing them. Several Court orders have been placed on record and proved by the Plaintiffs wherein Courts have come to their aid and protected the registered trademark MISS INDIA. Defendants No.1 and 2 have chosen to remain away from the proceedings and not contest the same. 17. Defendants No.1 and 2 attempted to seek registrations in the impugned marks but either the registrations were refused or the applications were abandoned, which is evident from the following table:- 18. A bare perusal of the rival marks shows that confusion amongst the members of public is inevitable. Even if one presumes that the members of public who watch beauty pageants are an informed audience, as rightly submitted by Ms. Jha, this is a text book case of initial interest confusion. Anyone who would come across the impugned marks DIVINE MISS INDIA/ after having initially come across the marks of the Plaintiffs MISS INDIA and in respect of a beauty pageant, would be placed in a state of wonderment as to whether the mark is the same as the one he had seen earlier or whether the mark before him bears an association with the mark he had earlier seen. Dealing with initial interest confusion, this Court in Under Armour, Inc. v. Aditya Birla Fashion & Retail Ltd, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2269, held that if a feeling of association arises when the customer initially views the Defendant’s marks, having seen Plaintiff’s some time earlier, that feeling by itself, suffices to make out a case of infringement. The initial impresion is what, fundamentally, matters. Even the Division Bench in Under Armour (supra), observed that if a customer looking at the impugned marks associates the same with the Appellant’s marks even though for a brief period, Appellant’s trademarks would be infringed on a plain reading of Section 29(1) and (2) of the 1999 Act. The duration of confusion in the mind of the customer is not material. The fact that the customer is confused, even if momentarily, will be enough to establish infringement of trademark. The fact that he may on closer examination of products and enquiries find that impugned trademarks are not associated with Appellant’s trademarks would not take away from the fact that the impugned trademarks bear a similarity with the Appellant’s trademark, which led to the confusion. For ease of reference, a comparative of the rival marks in the instant case is as follows, which demonstrates that initial interest confusion will arise in the mind of an unwary customer :- 19. Plaintiffs’ goodwill and reputation is evident from the continuous, excessive and uninterrupted use of the trademark MISS INDIA since 1964; revenues earned, promotional expenditure and Court orders. Clearly, Defendants No.1 and 2 have dishonestly adopted Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA in order to ride on the formidable goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiffs, built over the years. The intent in hosting a pageant under the impugned marks was to show an association with the Plaintiffs and confuse the members of public, which amounts to passing off. 20. Accordingly, it is held that Defendants No.1 and 2 have not only infringed Plaintiffs’ trademark MISS INDIA and its formative marks but also attempted to pass off their pageant as one associated with the Plaintiffs and being one of their variations, thereby violating Plaintiffs’ statutory and common law rights. In light of this, the suit is decreed in terms of prayers (a) and (b) of paragraph 46 of the plaint in favour of the Plaintiffs and against Defendants No.1 and 2. 21. The only other relief pressed by the Plaintiffs is for costs of the proceedings. Plaintiffs are held entitled to the actual costs of the proceedings, recoverable jointly from Defendants No.1 and 2 in terms of Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 (‘2018 Rules’) read with Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, 2022. Plaintiffs have filed their bill of costs in terms of Rule 5 of Chapter XXIII of 2018 Rules. List the matter before the Taxing Officer on 27.02.2026 for computation of costs. 22. Registry is directed to draw up the decree sheet. 23. Suit is disposed of along with the pending application. JYOTI SINGH, J JANUARY 21, 2026/YA CS(COMM) 252/2019 Page 1 of 9