Delhi HC Rules in Favour of Impressario’s ‘SOCIAL’ Restaurant Chain in Trademark Dispute, Orders Removal of ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ Mark [Read Judgment]

New Delhi: The Delhi High Court has directed the removal of the trademark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ from the Register of Trade Marks on grounds of non-use and dismissed 22 rectification petitions filed against various trademarks containing the word ‘SOCIAL’ registered by Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Justice Tejas Karia delivered the judgment on April 10, 2026, holding that the mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ was wrongly remaining on the Register as it had never been genuinely used for the services for which it was registered.

The case involved an appeal by Impressario seeking rectification of the mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ registered in Class 43 in favour of Vardhaman Choksi, while Vardhaman Choksi had filed 22 rectification petitions against Impressario’s marks, including ‘ODEON SOCIAL’, ‘COLABA SOCIAL’, ‘WHITEFIELD SOCIAL’, ‘SOCIAL OFFLINE’, ‘PALLADIUM SOCIAL’, ‘MOCHA SOCIAL HOUSE’, and ‘antiSOCIAL’.

Impressario, which commenced business in 2001 and operates well-known restaurants including Smoke House Deli and Salt Water Cafe, adopted the trademark ‘SOCIAL’ in 2012 for a unique concept blending collaborative workspace with multi-cuisine offerings. The company coined the concept of prefixing or suffixing ‘SOCIAL’ with particular city areas where its cafés would be located.

On October 20, 2017, Impressario filed a rectification petition before the Intellectual Property Appellate Board, Mumbai, for cancellation of the mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’. The Delhi High Court passed an ex parte ad interim injunction on December 6, 2017, restraining Vardhaman Choksi from opening a restaurant under the marks ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ and ‘SOCIAL’. After the abolition of the IPAB, the rectification petitions were transferred to the Delhi High Court.

Appearing for Impressario, senior counsel Chander M. Lall submitted that Impressario’s annual revenue from restaurants under the mark ‘SOCIAL’ for FY 2024–25 was Rs. 5,89,39,00,000, while promotional expenses were Rs. 29,19,00,000. He argued that Vardhaman Choksi does not have a restaurant under the mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ and, therefore, the mark is liable to be expunged under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. He further contended that Vardhaman Choksi has wrongly registered over 100 international brands in India with no corresponding use and is engaged in trademark squatting.

Appearing for Vardhaman Choksi, counsel Adarsh Ramanujan submitted that the mark ‘SOCIAL’ is generic and commonly used, and that Impressario is attempting to monopolize the English word ‘SOCIAL’ in relation to restaurant services. He argued that Vardhaman Choksi applied for registration of ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ on November 8, 2011, and has invoices dated November 20, 2011, establishing prior use. He submitted that Impressario opened its first ‘SOCIAL’ outlet in 2014, three years after Vardhaman Choksi’s use commenced. He further contended that Vardhaman Choksi used the mark continuously from 2011 to 2018 and ceased using it only due to litigation.

The Court observed that Impressario has proved that it is the registered proprietor of its marks and has demonstrated goodwill and reputation through continuous use since 2014. The Court held that, under the Imagination Test, when some level of imagination or mental leap is required to associate a mark with a product, the mark is suggestive. It further observed that the mark ‘SOCIAL’, in relation to the hospitality industry, has become associated with Impressario and is not generic.

The Court noted that Section 47 of the Act provides that a registered trademark is liable to be removed if it has not been used for five years and three months prior to the filing of the petition. The Court observed that Vardhaman Choksi had never used ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ in relation to the services for which it was registered in Class 43. Instead, the mark was used for events at his restaurant ‘ESCOBAR’, which falls under Class 41. The Court emphasized that use of a mark must correspond to the goods and services for which it is registered.

Addressing the argument regarding special circumstances in the trade under Section 47(3) of the Act, the Court held that the exception contemplates situations where non-use is due to external forces and not voluntary acts or omissions. The Court noted that Vardhaman Choksi claimed he stopped using the mark as a precautionary measure due to litigation, but held that an imminent threat of cancellation does not constitute a special circumstance in the trade.

The Court observed that the facts suggest a pattern of trademark squatting by Vardhaman Choksi. Impressario produced a list of over a hundred internationally recognised trademarks that Vardhaman Choksi has registered in India with no corresponding use. The Court held that this reflects a deliberate practice of trademark squatting—a manipulative tactic of adopting marks linked with established brands with the intent to sell such rights at a premium to genuine proprietors. Such conduct undermines the sanctity of the Trade Marks Register.

Accordingly, the Court allowed the appeal and directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’, registered under Application No. 2230483 in Class 43, from the Register. The Court also dismissed all 22 rectification petitions filed by Vardhaman Choksi against Impressario’s marks containing ‘SOCIAL’.

Case Details:

Case Title: Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. Vardhaman Choksi and Others

Case Numbers: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 and 22 connected rectification petitions

Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judge: Justice Tejas Karia

Date of Judgment: April 10, 2026

Counsel for Impressario: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Mr. Manish Dhir, Ms. Kriti Rathi, Ms. Annie Jacob, Mr. Jaskaran Singh Bindra, and Ms. Annanya Mehan, Advocates

Counsel for Vardhaman Choksi: Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Mustafa Alam, Ms. Yashima Sharma, Mr. Lakshya Kaushik, Mr. Sidharth Kausik, Ms. Divyanshi Bansal, Mr. Parth Singh, Mr. Amit Garg, Ms. Navya, Mr. Zubair Hanifi, Ms. Saba Tasleem, and Ms. Aalia, Advocates

Counsel for Registrar of Trade Marks: Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC, along with Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Mr. Jatin Dhamija, and Mr. Vinayak Aren, Advocates

[Read Judgment]