Delhi High Court Bars “Divine Miss India” For Infringing Times Group's “Miss India” Trademark

A Single-Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh, by a judgment dated January 21, 2026, ruled in favour of Bennett, holding that use of the impugned mark amounted to trademark infringement and passing off and was intended to exploit the goodwill associated with the “Miss India” mark.

Holding that confusion amongst the members of the public was inevitable, the Court observed, “Anyone who would come across the impugned marks DIVINE MISS INDIA after having initially come across the marks of the Plaintiffs MISS INDIA in respect of a beauty pageant, would be placed in a state of wonderment as to whether the mark is the same as the one he had seen earlier or whether the mark before him bears an association with the mark he had earlier seen.”

The case was filed by Bennett objecting to the use of the mark “Divine Miss India” for a beauty pageant and the operation of the website 'www.divinemissindia.com'. It was submitted that “Miss India” is a registered trademark adopted in 1964 and has acquired significant reputation through continuous and extensive use over several decades.

According to Bennett, the dispute arose in May 2019, when it discovered that Seraphic Divine was promoting a beauty pageant titled “Divine Miss India” through social media platforms and a dedicated website, inviting applications from participants across the country. It was also pointed out that Seraphic Divine had filed trademark applications for “Divine Miss India,” which were either refused or later abandoned.

The Court noted that an ex-parte ad-interim injunction had been granted on May 14, 2019, restraining Seraphic Divine from using the impugned mark and directing deletion of the infringing domain name. It was also recorded that despite service of summons, the rival company failed to contest the proceedings and was proceeded against ex-parte.

After examining the material on record, the Court held that the mere addition of the prefix “Divine” was insufficient to distinguish the rival marks.

“With the deceptive similarity in the rival marks and the services being identical i.e. organization and promotion of beauty pageants, there is no doubt that members of the public will be confused and deceived into believing that the impugned pageant under the impugned marks has an association with the Plaintiffs,” the Court observed.

Holding that the case attracted the doctrine of initial interest confusion, the Court further noted that even momentary confusion or association in the mind of an average consumer was sufficient to establish infringement.

“The fact that he may on closer examination of products and enquiries find that impugned trademarks are not associated with Appellant's trademarks would not take away from the fact that the impugned trademarks bear a similarity with the Appellant's trademark, which led to the confusion,” the Court added.

Accordingly, the Court permanently restrained Seraphic Divine Beauty Private Limited and its associates from using the mark “Divine Miss India” or any other deceptively similar variation. The Court also awarded actual costs in favour of Bennett and directed that the matter be placed before the Taxing Officer for computation of costs.

For Plaintiff: Advocates Mamta R. Jha, Akhil Saxena and Palak Batra