Delhi High Court: In an application seeking grant of a permanent and mandatory injunction against infringement of the ‘SOCIAL’ trade mark, the Single Judge Bench of Tejas Karia, J, held that use of the word ‘Social’ in the defendant’s name amounted to infringement and passing off.
Considering the long, continuous and uninterrupted usage of the mark by the plaintiff, the Court declared ‘SOCIAL’ a well-known trade mark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (‘Act’).
Background
The plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing restaurant services and has opened multiple bars across the country. The business model of the plaintiff is based on the unique concept of prefixing the mark ‘SOCIAL’/ 
(‘plaintiff’s mark’), with the particular area of the city in which the restaurant/bar is located. The plaintiff had averred that they had been using the mark since 2012 and enjoyed an extensive and widespread social media presence.
The defendant is operating a restaurant/café under the mark ‘THE SHAKE SOCIAL’/ 
(‘impugned mark’), offering sale and delivery of several beverages and desserts. The defendant has been advertising and promoting is café using the impugned mark through various third-party aggregators like Zomato, Swiggy, Justdial etc.
The plaintiff submitted that due to the continuous, extensive and exclusive use of the mark by the plaintiff, it has acquired immense goodwill, reputation and fame, so much so that the use of any identical or deceptively similar mark, especially comprising of the word ‘SOCIAL’ by another trader not connected to the plaintiff, in respect of any goods whatsoever, is bound to cause confusion and deception in the minds of the consuming public and members of trade
The plaintiff further averred that the defendants had adopted the impugned marks dishonestly with the sole intent of riding upon the goodwill of the plaintiff.
Analysis, Law and Decision
The Court noted that the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the mark and that due to its long and extensive use, the plaintiff has been able to demonstrate its goodwill and reputation. The Court opined that a case of infringement and passing off of the plaintiff’s marks has been made out by the plaintiff and the acts attributed to the defendant are likely to cause confusion in the course of trade of the plaintiff, such that the consumers may associate the services of the defendant with those of the plaintiff, leading to erosion of consumer trust and dilution of the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff amongst the members of the trade and public.
The Court stated that there is a significant risk that the consumers may mistakenly engage the services of the defendant under the impression they originate from the plaintiff, which adversely effects both the plaintiff’s reputation and the interests of consumers who may be misled into utilising potentially inferior services. The defendant offers identical services, and operates through the same trade channels and serves the same consumer base as the plaintiff.
The Court held that the defendant had taken an unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of the plaintiff’s mark and had dishonestly adopted the said mark without any reasonable explanation. Thus, a case of infringement and passing off was clearly made out.
With regards to the decree of declaration of SOCIAL as a well-known trade mark, the Court noted that the plaintiff’s mark had attained substantial recognition and signified a notable commercial presence. Considering the mark’s prolonged usage, reputation and distinctiveness, the Court held that the marks ‘SOCIAL’/ 
has attained the status of a well-known mark within the meaning and scope of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Act.
[Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. The Shake Social, CS (COMM) No. 121 of 2025, decided on 9-1-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Shikha Sachdeva, Kriti Rathi, Annie Jacob, Advocates