23 IA(L)-7092-2024.
doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
IN ITS COMMERCIAL DIVISION
INTERIM APPLICATION (L) NO. 7092 OF 2024
IN
COMMERCIAL IP SUIT (L) NO. 6754 OF 2024
Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality
Private Limited ...Applicant/Plaintiff
Versus
M/s. Social Tribe ...Defendant
——————
Mr. Hiren Kamod, Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Mr. Rahul Punjabi, Mr. Kranav Kapur,
Ms. Radhika Arora (on VC), Ms. Annie Jacob i/b Mr. Rahul Punjabi for Applicant/
Plaintiff.
——————
Coram : Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.
Date : 12th June, 2025.
P. C. :
1. This is an action for trade mark infringement and passing off. The
orders dated 26th March, 2024 and 15th April, 2024 records that the
Defendant has been served via email and also by speed post and item
has been returned unclaimed. Today, none appears for Defendant.
2. It is submitted that Applicant/Plaintiff is engaged in providing
restaurant services including but not limited to conducting and
managing restaurants and coffee shops; operating restaurants and
coffee shops; providing expertise relating to provision of food and
drink. The Plaintiff at present runs well-known restaurants and coffee
Sairaj 1 of 5
23 IA(L)-7092-2024.doc
shops at various places. Business has been commenced by the Plaintiff
in the year 2001 and since its inception the Plaintiff has opened various
well known and award-winning restaurants under different names
including the trade mark “SOCIAL”. It is submitted that Plaintiff at
present, is managing and operating 50 SOCIAL restaurants/bars pan
India and details of the various SOCIAL restaurants/bars are set out in
Paragraph No. 12 of the Plaint. The Plaintiff is registered proprietor of
the trade mark “SOCIAL” and its variants in classes 43, 42, 41, 35, 33, 32,
30, 25, 21, 16 and 9 and owns over hundred registrations for the trade
mark “SOCIAL” and its variants as well as its formatives in class 43
which are listed in Paragraph No. 15 of the Plaint.
3. Mr. Kamod would submit that the fact that the turn over of the
Plaintiff cumulatively over the years amounts to Rs. 1,500 crores and
the promotional expenses set out in Paragraph 24 of the Plaint amply
demonstrates the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the Plaintiff in
restaurant business. He would further submit that the Plaintiff has
active presence on social networking sites under its trade mark
“SOCIAL”. He submits that the Plaintiff has been vigilant in protecting
its trade mark which is evident from the various legal proceedings
initiated by the Plaintiff before the Delhi High Court in which the
Plaintiff has succeeded in restraining the infringement of its trade
mark “SOCIAL”and its formatives.
Sairaj 2 of 5
23 IA(L)-7092-2024.doc
4. It is submitted that in or around July, 2022, the Plaintiff became
aware that Defendant is operating a restaurant under registered trade
mark “SOCIAL TRIBE” in Mumbai which is identical to the Plaintiff’s
well-known and registered trade mark “SOCIAL” in its entirety as a part
of the Defendant’s trade name. He submits that before approaching
this Court, Cease-and-Desist notice was issued to the Defendant to
which, there was no response. He submits that further opportunity was
given by further communications on 27 th August, 2022 and 8th
December, 2022 to which again Defendant had not responded. He
submits that being the proprietor of registered trade mark and its
formatives, the Plaintiff has exclusive right to use the same and
infringement of the same causes grave harm, loss and prejudice to
Plaintiff entitling the Plaintiff for grant of injunctive relief against the
Defendant.
5. I have considered the submissions and perused the record.
6. Despite offering several opportunities to the Defendant to cause
appearance in the matter, none appears for Defendant. The pleadings,
therefore, remains unrefuted. Comparison of the Plaintiff’s mark and
Defendant’s mark is reproduced hereinbelow:
Sairaj 3 of 5
23 IA(L)-7092-2024.doc
Plaintiff’s Trade Marks Defendant’s Manner of Use
SOCIAL SOCIAL TRIBE
7. Perusal of the same would indicate that the Plaintiff’s registered
trade mark “SOCIAL” has been copied in its entirety by the Defendant.
The manner in which Defendant has used the word “SOCIAL” is
deceptively similar to the trade mark of the Plaintiff. The suffix word
“TRIBE” to the word “SOCIAL” does not take away the fact that the
Defendant had attempted to infringe the Plaintiff’s registered trade
mark by coming as close as possible to the registered trade mark.
Similarly, use of the colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow is
deceptively similar to that of the Plaintiff’s mark. There is also identity
in the services provided by Plaintiff and Defendant. Prima facie, upon
consideration of the rival trade marks, I am of the opinion that the
Defendant has attempted to infringe the registered trade mark of the
Plaintiff. The Plaintiff being proprietor of the registered trade mark is
entitled to exclusive use of the registered trade mark and its
formatives and there are various orders passed by the Delhi High Court
in favor of Plaintiff. A brazen attempt is made by the Defendant to
infringe the said trade mark which requires to be restrained. It also
Sairaj 4 of 5
23 IA(L)-7092-2024.doc
cannot be disputed that Plaintiff has robust presence in the restaurant
business which is prima facie demonstrated from the sales turn over
figures and promotional expenses set out. In event, the Defendant is
not restrained, despite a prima facie case being made out, the Plaintiff
will suffer irreparable loss, harm and prejudice and the balance of
convenience tilts in favor of Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is proprietor of the
registered trade mark as well as its formatives.
8. In light of the above, Interim Application is allowed in terms of
prayer clauses a) and b) which reads thus:
“a) pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, a
temporary order and injunction restraining and prohibiting the
Defendant and its servants, officers, employees, agents,
assignees, distributors and all others claiming through and
under the Defendant, from in any manner (directly or
indirectly), using, manufacturing, selling, distributing,
advertising or displaying any products/ services bearing the
Plaintiff’s trade mark/ trade name/ label of “SOCIAL” and its
variants (as depicted at Exhibits D and F) and/or using any other
identical/deceptively similar trade mark/ trade name/ label/
theme (as depicted at Exhibit N and its variants), so as to
infringe upon the Plaintiff’s registered trade marks;
b) pending the hearing and final disposal of the Suit, a
temporary order and injunction restraining and prohibiting the
Defendant and its servants, officers, employees, agents,
assignees, distributors and/or all others claiming through and
under the Defendant, from in any manner (directly or
indirectly), using, manufacturing, selling, distributing,
advertising, displaying, or stocking any products bearing the
Plaintiff’s trade mark/ trade name/ label/ theme of ‘SOCIAL’
and its variants (as depicted at Exhibits D and F) and/or using
any other identical/deceptively similar trade mark/ trade name/
label/ theme (as depicted at Exhibit N and its variants), so as to
pass off the Defendant’s goods, business, activities as that of
the Plaintiff’s and in any manner connected or associated with
the Plaintiff in any manner whatsoever”
[Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J.]
Sairaj 5 of 5
