Top News

Mumbai: In a relief for footwear major Metro Brands Limited, the Bombay High Court has restrained a Kerala based company, MetBrands Private Limited, from using marks that were similar to Metro’s registered trademarks.

Justice Arif Doctor, on April 30, restrained MetBrands while hearing a suit filed by Metro alleging misuse of its brand identity in the footwear and fashion accessories market.

“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 court said while granting interim relief till the next date of hearing on June 20.

Justice Doctor also noted that despite Metro goving notice twice, the defendant had not appeared before the court. “Hence, the Plaintiff is, in my prima facie view, entitled to ad interim relief," it said.

Founded in 1955, Metro Brands, a footwear and accessories retailer, stated in its plea 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 Rs 13,000 crore.

In the other hand, MetBrands, which was incorporated in November 2021, initially operated under the name “METRENDS.” 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.

Metro’s counsel Venkatesh Dhond argued that the defamdent’s rebranding was a deliberate attempt to ride on Metro’s goodwill and public recognition. A cease-and-desist notice had been issued earlier, but no corrective action was taken.

As the defendant failed to attend court proceedings despite notice of hearing, the HC proceeded to grant interim relief in favor of Metro. It noted that the plaintiff has longstanding reputation, significant market presence, and ownership of the contested trademarks.

The court has warned that if defendant fails to appear on the next hearing, the interim injunction order may be confirmed.