Bombay High Court: The present interim application was filed by the applicant ‘SOCIAL’ seeking remedy for trade mark infringement and passing off. The defendant ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’ was using the mark in a manner which was deceptively similar to the one registered by the applicant. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., after comparing both the marks, held that adding the suffix ‘TRIBE’ to the word ‘SOCIAL’ did not change the fact that the defendant attempted to infringe the registered trade mark of the applicant. The Court granted injunctive relief to the applicant by restraining and prohibiting the defendant from infringing upon the applicant’s registered trade mark.
Background:
The applicant ran well-known restaurants and coffee shops, providing expertise relating to the provision of food and drink since 2001 under different names including the trade mark ‘SOCIAL’. It operated 50 SOCIAL restaurants and bars throughout India and was the 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 owned over hundred registrations for the trade mark ‘SOCIAL’ and its variants as well as its formatives in class 43.
The applicant stated that its turnover cumulatively amounted to Rs. 1500 crores over the years which demonstrated the reputation and goodwill enjoyed by the applicant in the restaurant business. It was further mentioned that it was vigilant in protecting its trade mark which was evident from the various legal proceedings it initiated in the Delhi High Court where it successfully protected its trade mark.
In July 2022, the applicant got to know that the defendant was operating its restaurant under the registered trade mark ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’ in Mumbai which was identical to the applicant’s well-known trade mark ‘SOCIAL’. The defendant was served a cease-and-desist notice and other further communications to which it did not respond. Thereafter, the applicant submitted that he had the exclusive right to use the mark, and the infringement caused him grave harm, loss and prejudice entitling him for the grant of injunctive relief against the defendant.
Held:
The Court noted that several opportunities were offered to the defendant to make appearance, but it failed and therefore the pleadings of the applicant remained unrefuted. Upon the comparison of both the marks, the Court held that the applicant’s registered trade mark was copied in its entirety by the defendant. The suffix ‘TRIBE’ added to the word ‘SOCIAL’ did not change the fact that the defendant attempted to infringe the applicant’s trade mark.
Further, the Court also observed that the use of colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow of the defendant’s mark 
was deceptively similar to that of the applicant’s mark 
and the services provided by both of them were identical. The applicant being the proprietor of the registered trade mark and its formative was entitled to its exclusive use.
The Court opined that if the defendant was not restrained, the applicant would suffer irreparable loss, harm and prejudice and that the convenience tilted in favour of the applicant as it was the proprietor of the registered trade mark as well as its formatives.
Therefore, the Court restrained and prohibited the defendant and all others claiming under him from using, manufacturing, selling, distributing, advertising or displaying any products or services bearing the applicant’s trade mark and its variants, so as to infringe upon the applicant’s registered trade mark. It further prohibited the defendant from passing off his own goods, business or activities as that of the applicant’s and in any manner connected or associated with the applicant.
[Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality (P) Ltd. v. Social Tribe, Interim Application (L) No. 7092 of 2024, decided on 12-6-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Applicant/Plaintiff: Hiren Kamod, Shikha Sachdeva, Rahul Punjabi, Kranav Kapur, Radhika Arora (on VC), Annie Jacob i/b Rahul Punjabi.
