Bombay High Court: The plaintiff had filed the present application seeking to restrain the defendants from using the impugned trade mark “HOM” or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s trade marks “HOM”, “HOM House Of Mandarin” and registered trade mark “HOM House of Mandarin” and from passing off their services as that of plaintiff. A Single Judge Bench of Sharmila U. Deshmukh, J., held that the plaintiff operating the restaurant “House Of Mandarin” failed to establish a prima facie case of infringement or passing off. The Court noted that there was insufficient material to demonstrate that the abbreviation “HOM” had acquired goodwill or reputation in the public mind. Accordingly, the interim application was dismissed.
Background:
In the present case, the plaintiff and the defendants are in the business of restaurant services. The plaintiff conceived and adopted the trade mark “House Of Mandarin” in 2016, secured registration in 2017, and launched restaurants in Bandra and Powai. Over time, the mark allegedly came to be popularly known by the acronym “HOM.” Applications were filed for “Asian Bistro by HOM” in July 2025 and for “HOM” in October 2025.
Around September 2025, the plaintiff became aware that the defendants had adopted the identical mark “HOM” for their restaurant services in Bandra, close to the plaintiff’s outlet. The plaintiff contended that “HOM” was well associated with its registered mark “House Of Mandarin,” and referred to newspaper articles, social media posts, menu cards, packaging, and delivery platforms to substantiate the association of the acronym “HOM” with the registered trade mark “House of Mandarin”.
The defendants argued that their adoption of “HOM” was independent and bona fide, derived from the Sanskrit word describing the act of offering into fire. They contended that the plaintiff had no registration or actionable goodwill in “HOM,” as the registered mark was “House Of Mandarin.” They further argued that references to “HOM” were sporadic, undated, or unreliable, and that delivery platforms consistently referred to “House Of Mandarin.” They also stressed that the restaurants catered to distinct cuisines and discerning customers, reducing any likelihood of confusion.
Analysis and Decision:
The Court emphasised that statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 extends only to registered trade marks. Further, the Court noted that to extend the benefit of use and registration of a registered trade mark to an acronym, the acronym must be shown to be consistently in public domain and contemporaneously documented.
The Court highlighted that delivery platforms such as Swiggy, Zomato etc. which play an important role in online food delivery system, the laintiff’s restaurant has been referred to “House Of Mandarin” and not “HOM”. It was also observed that promotional material for the plaintiff’s second restaurant did not prominently reflect “HOM,” and the registration application for “HOM” was filed only after the defendants’ launch.
The Court noted that only four articles over eight years referred to “HOM,” which was insufficient to establish public identification, moreover the sporadic invoices and undated menu cards were also inadequate. The Court observed that passing off requires proof of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of injury and it was found that the plaintiff had not demonstrated goodwill in the standalone mark “HOM,” nor sufficient evidence of confusion. Further, the WhatsApp chats relied upon were undated and unsupported by affidavits.
The Court remarked that the defendant’s stylised use of “HOM” differed from the plaintiff’s depiction in straight English alphabets. It was also noted that both the restaurants are premium restaurants which would obviously cater to a distinct well informed and well-educated consumer base and the likelihood of confusion is bleak in such cases.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Interim Application.
[Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects (P) Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality (P) Ltd., Interim Application (L) No. 35432 of 2025, decided on 19-12-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Sandeep Parikh appeared i/b. Liliaan Daas, Arsalan Thaver, Samishka Malekar, and Kajal Panhalkar i/b. Abhiraj Parab.
For the Defendants: Anand Mohan a/w. Lavin Hirani and Ishan Puranik i/b. Vikramaditya Chavan.