{"id":370543,"date":"2025-12-22T15:00:48","date_gmt":"2025-12-22T09:30:48","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=370543"},"modified":"2025-12-25T11:33:42","modified_gmt":"2025-12-25T06:03:42","slug":"bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/","title":{"rendered":"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over ‘HOM’ trade mark dispute"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Bombay High Court:<\/span> 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<\/span>, 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.<\/p>\n

Background:<\/h3>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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”.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Analysis and Decision:<\/h3>\n

The Court emphasised that statutory protection under the Trade Marks Act, 1999<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Interim Application.<\/p>\n

[Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects (P) Ltd. v. Fundamental Hospitality (P) Ltd., 2025 SCC OnLine Bom 5298<\/a>, decided on 19-12-2025<\/span>]<\/p>\n\n

Advocates who appeared in this case:<\/p>\n

For the Plaintiff:<\/span> Sandeep Parikh appeared i\/b. Liliaan Daas, Arsalan Thaver, Samishka Malekar, and Kajal Panhalkar i\/b. Abhiraj Parab.<\/p>\n

For the Defendants:<\/span> Anand Mohan a\/w. Lavin Hirani and Ishan Puranik i\/b. Vikramaditya Chavan.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

“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.”<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":67537,"featured_media":370548,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[95412,2569,53540,36595,14752,95413,66917,14722,95411,67963,46158],"class_list":["post-370543","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-acronym-hom","tag-Bombay_High_Court","tag-confusion","tag-deceptive-similarity","tag-goodwill","tag-house-of-mandarin","tag-justice-sharmila-u-deshmukh","tag-passing-off","tag-restaurant-services","tag-trade-mark-dispute","tag-trade-mark-infringement"],"yoast_head":"\nBombay HC denies relief in HOM trade mark dispute | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over 'HOM' trade mark dispute\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-12-22T09:30:48+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-12-25T06:03:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"800\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"533\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:title\" content=\"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over 'HOM' trade mark dispute\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Soumya Yadav\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"4 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/\",\"name\":\"Bombay HC denies relief in HOM trade mark dispute | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-12-22T09:30:48+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-12-25T06:03:42+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\"},\"description\":\"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp\",\"width\":800,\"height\":533,\"caption\":\"HOM trade mark dispute\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over ‘HOM’ trade mark dispute\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7\",\"name\":\"Soumya Yadav\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Soumya Yadav\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Bombay HC denies relief in HOM trade mark dispute | SCC Times","description":"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over 'HOM' trade mark dispute","og_description":"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2025-12-22T09:30:48+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-12-25T06:03:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":800,"height":533,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Soumya Yadav","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_title":"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over 'HOM' trade mark dispute","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Soumya Yadav","Est. reading time":"4 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/","name":"Bombay HC denies relief in HOM trade mark dispute | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp","datePublished":"2025-12-22T09:30:48+00:00","dateModified":"2025-12-25T06:03:42+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7"},"description":"Bombay High Court dismisses petition seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin restaurant in 'HOM' trade mark dispute and stated that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill or confusion in relation to the acronym HOM.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp","width":800,"height":533,"caption":"HOM trade mark dispute"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/12\/22\/bom-hc-denies-relief-in-hom-trade-mark-dispute\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Bombay HC dismisses plea seeking interim relief to House of Mandarin Restaurant over ‘HOM’ trade mark dispute"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/352812a68de79340babca39b2fea18c7","name":"Soumya Yadav","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/2363aa3509ea5744057dbee913f279c33e94e40e89a96de9ff58ec27fde9881d?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Soumya Yadav"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/soumya\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/12\/HOM-trade-mark-dispute.webp","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":359365,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/08\/karpure-campure-trademark-dispute-bombay-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":0},"title":"\u2018KARPURE\u2019 not deceptively similar to \u2018CAMPURE\u2019; Bombay HC declines interim injunction to Mangalam Organics in trade mark dispute","author":"Editor","date":"September 8, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cRelevant consumer base for the products which are deodorizers, air purifiers etc would be an average educated class with the ability to differentiate between the rival marks especially when there is no resemblance apart from a phonetic similarity between the two when viewed as a whole.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"CAMPURE trade mark infringement","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/CAMPURE-trade-mark-infringement.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":367559,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/24\/bom-hc-upholds-interim-relief-asian-paints-trademark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":1},"title":"Bombay High Court upholds interim relief to Asian Paints in trade mark dispute, finds rival marks confusingly similar","author":"Editor","date":"November 24, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThis Court came to a prima facie finding of overall deceptive similarity in the rival marks and that the impugned marks and the artwork adopted by the defendant is deceptively and confusingly similar to that of the Asian Paint Ltd.\u2019s mark.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Asian Paints trade mark","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/Asian-Paints-trade-mark.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":350869,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/06\/18\/bomhc-grants-interim-relief-to-social-in-trade-mark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":2},"title":"Bombay HC grants interim relief to \u2018SOCIAL\u2019 restaurant against \u2018SOCIAL TRIBE\u2019 in trade mark dispute","author":"Editor","date":"June 18, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The use of colour scheme of pink, orange, yellow of the defendant\u2019s mark is deceptively similar to that of the applicant\u2019s mark.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Bombay High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Bombay-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":366867,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/11\/15\/bom-hc-decides-metro-footwear-metro-trade-mark-dispute\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":3},"title":"Bombay High Court restrains METRO FOOTWEAR from infringing registered trade mark \u2018METRO\u2019; To decide if \u2018METRO\u2019 a well-known mark","author":"Editor","date":"November 15, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe registration of the plaintiff\u2019s mark in the year 1972, prima facie, granted an exclusive right to the plaintiff to use it, which was infringed when the defendants used the impugned mark METRO FOOTWEAR.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"METRO trade mark dispute","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/METRO-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/METRO-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/METRO-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/METRO-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":352090,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/07\/02\/bom-hc-grants-injunction-to-parachute-against-cocoplus-trade-mark\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":4},"title":"Know why Bombay HC granted interim injunction to \u2018Parachute\u2019 against \u2018CocoPlus\u2019 in trade mark dispute","author":"Editor","date":"July 2, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe defendant\u2019s use of the plaintiff\u2019s trade mark cannot be said to be an honest adoption as though having a registered trade mark, the defendant deviated from the mark and adopted a mark which is deceptively similar to the plaintiff\u2019s registered trade mark.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Parachute-Cocoplus trade mark dispute","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Parachute-Cocoplus-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Parachute-Cocoplus-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Parachute-Cocoplus-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/07\/Parachute-Cocoplus-trade-mark-dispute.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":372171,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/01\/09\/bhc-bars-salon-use-jawed-habib-trademarks-after-franchise-expiry\/","url_meta":{"origin":370543,"position":5},"title":"Bombay High Court bars salon’s continued use of ‘Jawed Habib’ trademarks and copyrights following expiry of franchise agreement; Issues ad-interim injunction","author":"Soumya Yadav","date":"January 9, 2026","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cThe franchise agreement prima facie indicated acceptance of ownership of the plaintiff in the registered trademarks and permitted use only during subsistence of the agreement.\u201d","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Jawed Habib trademarks","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/01\/Jawed-Habib-trademarks.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370543","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/67537"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=370543"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/370543\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/370548"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=370543"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=370543"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=370543"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}