Delhi High Court Restrains Rival From Using JVCO 2024's 'Mother Care' Mark For Baby Products

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad-interim injunction in favour of JVCO 2024 Limited, restraining a rival from using the mark “MOTHER CARE” for baby products, holding it to be identical and deceptively similar to its registered trademark “MOTHERCARE”.

Justice Tushar Rao Gedela, in an order dated April 7, 2026, observed, “It is apparent from the above that the defendant has dishonestly adopted the mark MOTHER CARE without any justifiable reasons. As noted above, the two marks are identical, visually and phonetically. It is most likely to cause confusion with the unwary consumer with average intelligence and imperfect recollection. The consumer would associate the products of the defendant as those of the plaintiff or be under an impression that such goods are associated with the plaintiff somehow. Every purchase would cause financial loss to the plaintiff and unlawful financial gain to the defendant.”

JVCO 2024 Limited, which owns the globally recognised “MOTHERCARE” brand, moved the court against a rival trader, Syed Jalaluddin, operating through A.M. Agencies and Hamza Kids Wear, along with associated entity Asma Textiles, alleging trademark infringement and passing off.

The rival entities were found to be manufacturing, supplying and selling baby products such as diapers, wipes and under-pads under the impugned mark “MOTHER CARE”.

The court noted that the “MOTHERCARE” mark was first adopted in 1961 in the United Kingdom by Mothercare Global Brands Limited. In India, the rights now stand assigned to JVCO 2024 Limited under an Assignment Deed dated October 15, 2024. Over time, the brand has come to enjoy a significant global presence, including in the Indian market.

To support its claim of reputation, the plaintiff relied on its continuous use of the mark, existing trademark registrations, and its marketing efforts. Among these were collaborations with Welsh designer Julian Macdonald and actor Alia Bhatt, along with campaigns such as #BodyProudMums.

The court also took note of the rival's earlier attempt to secure registration of the mark “MotherCare”. That application, however, was abandoned in January 2024 after being opposed by the plaintiff.

Despite this, the rival was found to have clandestinely resumed use of the impugned mark in February 2026 under another trading name.

Comparing the marks, the court held, “Except for the difference that the infringing mark is in capital letters, the infringing mark is identical visually, structurally, and phonetically as well as deceptively similar. The goods which are sold under the infringing trademark are the same as that of the plaintiff.”

The bench added that such use would result in “financial loss to the plaintiff and unlawful financial gain to the defendant.”

Finding that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and would suffer irreparable harm, the court restrained the rival and all persons acting on its behalf from manufacturing, selling, advertising, or dealing in any products bearing the mark “MOTHER CARE” or any deceptively similar variant.

The court also directed the rival to take down online listings of the infringing products from third-party platforms and social media.

The matter is now listed before the Joint Registrar on July 16, 2026 for completion of service and pleadings, and before the court on September 30, 2026