Metro Brands gets interim relief from Bombay High Court in trademark case against MetBrands

The Bombay High Court recently granted ad-interim relief to footwear retail company, Metro Brands Limited, in a trademark dispute against a Kerala-based company that had been operating under the name, MetBrands Private Limited [Metro Brands Limited v MetBrands Private Limited]..By an April 30 order, Justice Arif Doctor restrained the Kerala-based company (defendant) from using marks that were similar to Metro’s registered trademarksThe order comes in a case concerning the alleged misuse of Metro’s brand identity in the footwear and fashion accessories market.In the interim order, the Court held that a case had been made out for the immediate protection of Metro’s trademark rights. “The impugned goods and services being sold under the impugned marks by the Defendant, in my view, are prima facie deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s (Metro) registered marks. The Defendant despite being served twice, has chosen not to appear before this Court and refute any of the contentions set out. Hence, the Plaintiff is, in my prima facie view, entitled to ad interim relief," it said. The order will remain in effect until the next hearing on June 20, 2025, and may be confirmed if MetBrands continues to remain unrepresented..In its plea, Metro Brands - a footwear and accessories retailer with operations dating back to 1955 - highlighted that it has a retail footprint of 895 stores across 203 Indian cities, including 18 outlets in Kerala.The company owns several registered trademarks, including “METRO” and “METRO BRANDS,” with a reported turnover of ₹13,000 crore.In contrast, MetBrands Private Limited, incorporated in November 2021, initially operated under the name “METRENDS.” However, shortly after Metro’s public listing in December 2021, MetBrands reportedly adopted a new brand identity that closely mirrored that of Metro and began selling similar goods on platforms like Amazon..Representing Metro Brands, Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond argued that MetBrands’ rebranding was a deliberate attempt to ride on Metro’s goodwill and public recognition..He pointed to the timing of the name change and the launch of similar products as evidence of intent to mislead consumers. The Court was also informed that a cease-and-desist notice had been issued earlier, but no corrective action was taken..Despite receiving notices for court hearings on April 28 and April 29, MetBrands did not enter an appearance or file a response..The Court proceeded to grant an interim injunction in Metro's favour, after noting its longstanding reputation, significant market presence, and ownership of the contested trademarks."There can be no doubt about the Plaintiff’s name and reputation in the field of sale and supply of leather goods, especially in shoes. The record also sets out that the Plaintiff has huge turnover and also under its umbrella markets and sales various international footwear brands," Justice Doctor said. .The Court found the marks used by the defendant to be “prima facie deceptively similar” and held that, in light of the non-appearance of the defendant, an interim injunction was warranted.The Court also made it clear that if the defendant fails to appear in the next hearing, the interim injunction order may be confirmed on the next date..Senior Advocate Venkatesh Dhond along with advocates Rashmin Khandekar, Alhan Kayser, Prateek Pansare, Hitisha Patel and Varsha Vasave instructed by Avesh Kayser appeared for Metro Brands.[Read Order]