Delhi High Court Temporarily Restrains Vadodara Based Cafe From Using Trademark Of 'SOCIAL' Restaurants And Bars

The Delhi High Court, in an interim order, temporarily restrained an entity operating a Vadodara based restaurant, from using the popular 'SOCIAL' trademark registered by Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, after noting that the entity's mark was similar and was likely to cause confusion to the general public. 

The ex parte ad interim injunction was passed in the plaintiff– Impresario's interim relief application for restraining Star Hospitality, the defendant entity– who operates the restaurant named "SOCIAL AFFAIR" in Vadodara, Gujarat– from infringing the plaintiff's SOCIAL trademark.

The interim relief plea was filed in Impresario's (plaintiff) main lawsuit for permanent injunction for trademark and copyright infringement against Star Hospitality. 

A single judge bench of Justice Saurabh Banerjee in its order compared the marks of the plaintiff and defendant and said, "The aforesaid reflects that the defendant has adopted an identically similar mark as that of the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SOCIAL' in its entirety by merely adding a suffix 'AFFAIR' to it to somehow completely associate itself with the plaintiff's registered trade mark 'SOCIAL' and chain of restaurants/ cafes/ bars with 'SOCIAL'". 

"Under these circumstances, the defendant has dishonestly adopted and is wrongly using the impugned mark(s) 'SOCIAL AFFAIR', with a sole intention to come as close as possible to the plaintiff to ride upon the goodwill and reputation earned by the plaintiff and take benefit thereof. The defendant has adopted and continuing to use the impugned mark(s) 'SOCIAL AFFAIR', ' ' without any justifiable cause and/ or reasons as also without seeking any permission and/ or authority from the plaintiff. The defendant had no reason to have chosen a mark with the trade mark 'SOCIAL' of the plaintiff..." the court added. 

By doing so, the court said, the defendant was trying to portray that the plaintiff, who has an "all India presence", is now operating in Vadodara, adding that this is "likely to cause unwanted confusion and deception" amongst the general public at large. 

The court further said that since the plaintiff is the "prior adopter, owner and registrant" of the 'SOCIAL' trademark and its formatives, it has a "right for seeking protection". It further said that the "manner of adoption" by the defendant by merely adding a suffix to the plaintiff's trade mark 'SOCIAL' is in no way "decipherable" or distinguishable separately to show that it is not associated with the plaintiff.

"An average consumer with an imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived into thinking that the plaintiff has opened a new 'SOCIAL' outlet in Vadodara, Gujarat where the defendant is operating its outlet. As the defendant is operating in the same field of restaurant and hospitality services, dealing with the same kind of operatives and catering to the same set of customers as also since the plaintiff has an all India presence, it cannot be disputed that the defendant was not aware of the plaintiff, its wide fame and repute," the court added.

The defendant, the court observed, cannot be allowed to take any advantage by "exploiting the goodwill and reputation" of the plaintiff's already existing registered trade mark by portraying that it has some kind of association with the plaintiff.

The Court held that Impresario has made out a "prima facie case" with the balance of convenience for grant of this interim injunction. It noted that if the defendant is not restrained by the interim injunction, there is a likelihood of irreparable harm, loss and injury to Impresario.

It thereafter restrained the defendant, as well as its licensees, directors, affiliates etc, from offering its services and even permitting third parties to use the 'SOCIAL' trademark or any other trademark which is identical to the plaintiff's trademark, till the next date of hearing. 

Issuing notice to the defendant in the interim relief application the high court listed the matter on January 16, 2025. The court also issued summons in the main lawsuit. 

Contentions

Click Here To Read/Download Order