Yahoo Inc. Wins Lawsuit Against "YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener" Brand for Trademark Infringement

In a decisive ruling, the Delhi High Court awarded Yahoo Inc. compensatory and punitive damages in a trademark infringement case against a defendant using the brand name "YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener." Mini Pushkarna, J., underscored the protection afforded to well-known trademarks from unauthorized commercial exploitation, ruling in favour of Yahoo Inc. and concluding that the defendant's actions constituted trademark infringement.

Yahoo Inc., a global online services provider, argued that the defendant’s use of "YAAHOO!" for a mouth freshener was a clear instance of trademark infringement and passing off. The company alleged that a similar mark, used for an unrelated commercial product, attempted to capitalize on Yahoo’s established goodwill and unique brand identity. The infringement came to light when an investigator hired by Yahoo Inc. discovered "YAAHOO! Mouth Freshener" in the market. The defendant admitted to the investigator that, despite no affiliation with Yahoo Inc., they had been using the name for nearly nine years.

Yahoo Inc. backed its claim with product samples and images, and in the absence of a response or written statement from the defendant, the case proceeded ex parte. After examining the evidence, the Court concluded that the defendant's use of "YAAHOO!" was deliberate, aiming to exploit Yahoo's reputation. The Court noted the defendant's stylized font and logo similarity to Yahoo’s prior branding, pointing to a calculated attempt at bad faith usage, especially as the defendant's trademark application for "YAAHOO!" had already been denied.

The Court awarded Yahoo Inc. ?8,92,451 in compensatory damages to cover verified legal expenses and imposed punitive damages of ?27,00,000. The ruling cited previous cases, including Microsoft Corporation v. Rajendra Pawar and Times Incorporated v. Lokesh Srivastava, emphasizing that punitive damages deter deliberate infringers who avoid responsibility by not attending court.

This landmark judgment serves as a stern warning against trademark exploitation and reaffirms the rights of well-known brands to protect their identity from misuse. The award of both compensatory and punitive damages reflects the Court’s commitment to upholding trademark laws and discouraging willful infringement.