The aspect of reputation allegedly earned by the Defendants in the context of their services cannot be of much relevance when it is clear that the Plaintiff is entitled to assert its proprietary rights based on the registered trademark. It is settled law that when an entity decides to use a mark for its goods or services, it is incumbent upon such an entity to make proper inquiries to find out whether an identical or similar mark is already registered or is being used in respect of such goods or services.

‘MAUJ’ and ‘MOJ’ form the basis for the instant dispute before the Bombay High Court. Both words in Hindi are used as expression of Joy. The Plaintiff, Mauj Mobile Private Limited (Mauj), filed the suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off, etc., and to restrain the Defendant, Mohalla Tech Private Limited and Ors (Mohalla) from using the mark MOJ in relation to their business of providing Digital services. This note discusses rival contentions and the Court Order granting interim injunction.

Mauj, in support of its case, stated:

1. They honestly adopted and started using the mark ‘MAUJ’ in and around the year 2003 in relation to software programming, entertainment, and content distribution business.
2. They provide digital content distribution and value-added services in the mobile industry, including mobile applications, for a considerable period; by virtue of use, they have acquired substantial goodwill in the market. The MAUJ mark is registered in classes 38, 41, and 42.
3. In September 2020, they became aware of the use of the mark MOJ by Mohalla, and a letter was addressed asking to cease the use of the mark. However, Mohalla replied by stating that ‘MOJ’ was derived from the expression ‘Moments of joy’ and claimed differences in the services offered by the parties.
4. In January 2021, they noticed the trademark applications for the mark MOJ in classes 9, 35, 38, 42, and 45 and filed an opposition. Thereafter, this suit was filed.
5. The trademark MOJ is deceptively similar to the registered mark MAUJ and the change in spelling is irrelevant, considering that the rival marks are phonetically identical.
6. The mark MAUJ is registered in class 41 specifically in relation to ‘entertainment’, and Mohalla’s use of a deceptively similar mark in relation to similar services amounts to trademark infringement and passing off.

Mohalla countered the injunction application on the following:

1. The services rendered by the party differ, and there is no chance of confusion. The rival marks have different spellings, and the use of the emoji along with the trademark ‘MOJ’ makes it distinct.
2. Mauj is engaged in the business of providing digital services to businesses, and it does not involve any outreach to individual consumers/customers, whereas the contents in the MOJ App are consumer-driven and uploaded by the consumers.
3. Mauj cannot be permitted to destroy other business entities merely based on its registration in class 41 which is overbroad.

The Court, after considering the pleadings, arguments, and case laws, held:

1. Mohalla contends that the registration obtained for its trademark ‘MAUJ’ is overbroad, and if the contentions are accepted, it would amount to thwarting innovation and restraining entities from providing services under the broad classification. Mauj argues that if Mohalla’s contentions are accepted, it will turn the settled position of law on its head by emphasizing upon ‘use’ rather than ‘registration’ of trademark while granting such proprietary rights.
2. Section 28 of the Trademarks Act, 1999, provides for rights conferred by registration, indicating the exclusive right of the registered proprietor of a trademark to use the same in respect of the goods or services for which it is registered.
3. Mohalla contends that Mauj could assert its rights in respect of the services that it is providing and not for other services. Merely based on the registration under the broad classification of ‘Entertainment,’ Mauj cannot assert its proprietary rights in the registered trademark for services that it never provided nor was in contemplation at the time of registration.
4. The Court opined in the instant case Mauj has registration for the category ‘Entertainment’ under Class 41, which includes four categories i.e., education, providing of training, entertainment, sporting and cultural activities. Mohalla also claims that their services are covered under the specific category of entertainment, and since Mauj has registration for the said specific category within Class 41, they are entitled to assert their proprietary rights with regard to the registered trademark.
5. Mauj has registration in Class 38 which pertains to telecommunication services. The nature of services indicated therein includes the transmission of digital files and electronic mail, streaming of data, providing internet chatrooms and online forums, transmission of broadcasting, and providing user access to global computer networks. This shows that Mauj has registration not only for the category ‘Entertainment’ but also for ‘Telecommunication services’ covered under Class 38, which entitles it to assert its proprietary right against a deceptively similar trademark being used for identical or similar services by any party. Hence, this Court is inclined to hold that Mauj’s registration cannot be labelled as overbroad and that a strong prima facie case is made out to seek interim reliefs on the strength of its registration.
6. Mohalla’s contention that services offered by the parties differ ought not to succeed at this stage. They argue that the services provided by Mauj are business to business, with no outreach to individual customers, whereas the service provided by them not only reaches out to individual customers, but it provides a platform for them to upload their short video and audio content.
7. In this regard, it is to be noted that the distinction sought by Mohalla between the rival services is not so significant that despite registration obtained by Mauj, it cannot assert its proprietary rights. Moreover, there is some material on record to indicate that the services provided by Mauj do reach out to individual customers, apart from services being provided to certain businesses, which in any case, is a matter of trial.
8. With regard to deceptive similarities, the mere use of an emoji along with the trademark MOJ cannot help Mohalla escape the consequences of using a mark that is deceptively similar to the registered trademark MAUJ.
9. The explanation that ‘MOJ’ stands for ‘Moments of Joy,’ prima facie, appears to be an afterthought, as none of the material relied upon by Mohalla indicates the use of such expression in conjunction with the impugned trademark ‘MOJ.’
10. Mauj has placed on record sufficient material to indicate that its predecessor and they have openly and continuously used the trademark ‘MAUJ’ from the year 2003 onwards and acquired goodwill. Balance of convenience is also in their favor.

In light of the above, the Court granted an injunction in favor of Mauj and restraining Mohalla from using the mark MOJ in relation to their business till the disposal of the suit.