The Delhi High Court recently restrained an Indian man from using the Barbie or any other similar trademark in his business activities after Mattel filed a suit for trademark infringement [Mattel, Inc v Padum Borah and Ors]. 

In an interim order passed on September 9, Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora said that the defendant Padum Borah had used the marks like Barbie Enterprises, Barbie Kitchen or Barbie Catering to create initial interest in his products and the continued use would cause irreparable harm to Mattel Inc, the owners of Barbie.

"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 said.

Therefore, it ordered Borah to stop using the trademark and take down all social media posts and accounts using the Barbie name. 

Further, the Court also ordered the suspension of domain names with the word Barbie in them. 

Mattel had moved the High Court stating that it owns the globally recognised BARBIE trademark, which is registered in multiple classes in India since 1985, and has been used extensively in the country since 1987.

In August 2024, Mattel learned that the defendants (Borah) had applied for and were using a series of marks like ‘BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA Foods’, ‘BARBIE ENTERPRISES’, ‘BARBIE HOSPITALITY’, etc for commercial kitchen equipment and catering services.

Even though a cease-and-desist notice was issued, the defendants did not respond. Further, the Trademarks Registry flagged conflicts between the defendants’ application and Mattel’s prior registrations. 

After hearing the case, the Court held that Mattel is the registered proprietor of the Barbie trademark. 

Therefore, it passed the injunction order. 

Advocates Shwetasree Majumder, Prithvi Singh, Prithvi Gulati and Ritwik Marwaha appeared for Mattel. 

None appeared for the defendants. 

[Read Order]