Trademark Row: Bombay HC Grants Relief to ‘SOCIAL’ Restaurant Chain, Bars ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’
In a major relief to ‘SOCIAL’, a well-known restaurant chain, the Bombay High Court restrained a Mumbai-based restaurant, the defendant ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’, from using the mark ‘SOCIAL’, observing that it was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s mark.
A bench led by Justice Sharmila Deshmukh passed the order in an interim application filed by the owner of ‘SOCIAL’, Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., seeking an injunction against ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’, restraining the defendant restaurant from using the trademark “SOCIAL” or any deceptively similar mark.
"A brazen attempt is made by the defendant to infringe the said trademark, which requires to be restrained. It also cannot be disputed that the plaintiff has a robust presence in the restaurant business, which is prima facie demonstrated from the sales turnover figures and promotional expenses set out. In the event the defendant is not restrained, despite a prima facie case being made out, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, harm and prejudice, and the balance of convenience tilts in favor of the plaintiff, who is the proprietor of the registered trademark as well as its formatives," the court held.
While referring to the trademark used by the defendant, the high court observed that adding the suffix ‘TRIBE’ to the word ‘SOCIAL’ does not take away from the fact that the defendant had attempted to infringe the plaintiff’s registered trademark.
In its order, the court noted that the plaintiff has been operating restaurants since 2001 and currently runs over 50 "SOCIAL" outlets across India.
Before the High Court, advocate Hiren Kamod, representing the plaintiff, argued that the defendant’s use of “SOCIAL TRIBE” copies the mark “SOCIAL” with only a minor addition of the word “TRIBE”.
It was the plaintiff’s case that the mark in question was deceptively similar, both in name and colour scheme. It was further contended that both parties operate in the same service sector, which could create a likelihood of confusion in the minds of consumers.
Citing previous Delhi High Court orders, the counsel submitted that similar relief had been granted in favour of the plaintiff. It was further stated that the plaintiff had sent cease-and-desist notices in August and December 2022, but received no response.
On the other hand, no appearance or arguments were made by the defendant. Therefore, the court proceeded ex parte due to repeated non-response.
Finding prima facie evidence of trademark infringement and passing off, the court observed that the defendant’s mark was an attempt to come deceptively close to the plaintiff’s mark “SOCIAL”.
Accordingly, the court allowed the interim application and passed injunction orders, restraining the defendant.
For Plaintiffs: Mr. Hiren Kamod, Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Mr. Rahul Punjabi, Mr. Kranav Kapur, Ms. Radhika Arora (on VC), Ms. Annie Jacob i/b Mr. Rahul Punjabi for Applicant/Plaintiff
Case Title: Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v Social Tribe