Trademark Case: Delhi HC Grants Interim Relief To Luggage Brand Mokobara

Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court has recently granted interim protection to premium luggage brand Mokobara in a trademark infringement case, restraining certain individuals from manufacturing and selling lookalike products that allegedly imitate the brand’s distinctive design and trade dress.

Justice Amit Bansal, in an order dated May 30, observed that the defendants were using marks and visual styles “confusingly similar” to Mokobara’s, making it a clear case of prima facie trademark infringement and passing off.

“The only possible explanation for the defendants adopting such similar designs and branding is to take unfair advantage of Mokobara’s reputation,” the court noted, emphasizing that the imitation extended beyond mere resemblance and bordered on intentional misrepresentation.

The court issued an ex-parte ad interim injunction—a temporary restraining order passed without hearing the other side—since no one appeared in court for the defendants despite being notified in advance.

Copying Every Detail, Allegedly

According to submissions by Mokobara’s legal team, the company discovered in April 2025 that a website named ‘Ventex Germany’ was selling nearly identical luggage under the name ‘Greenland’. The website and its associated social media accounts displayed bags that closely mirrored Mokobara’s signature design elements.

These allegedly included:

A unique rectangular silhouette
Horizontal ridges and specific piping patterns
Signature color combinations
Yellow checkered inner lining marked with ‘m’-emblazoned squares

Mokobara claimed that this “deliberate and calculated mimicry” was an attempt to mislead consumers and exploit their established brand identity.

Justice Bansal remarked that such replication of design elements could not be coincidental. “There appears to be no legitimate reason for adopting this trade dress other than to mislead consumers,” he said, recognizing the strength of Mokobara’s common law and registered trademark rights.

The matter is set for a detailed hearing on October 10, when the court may hear arguments from the defendants, provided they appear.