The Delhi High Court directs removal of the ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ trademark, citing non-use in the registered category, and rules in favour of Impresario in a dispute with restaurateur Vardhaman trade Impresario wins ‘SOCIAL’ trademark dispute
The Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of the trademark “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the Trade Marks Register, concluding that it had not been genuinely used for the services under which it was registered. The ruling comes in favour of Impresario, which operates the ‘SOCIAL’ chain of café-bars and restaurant-style outlets across the country.
Impresario had moved the court seeking cancellation of the mark, which was registered in 2011 by Mumbai-based restaurateur Vardhaman Choksi, as per media
report. Choksi, who runs the nightclub Escobar in Mumbai, claimed prior use of the mark and also contested several of Impresario’s trademarks containing the word “SOCIAL”.
While examining the case, the court focused on whether the “SOCIAL HOUSE” mark had been used in relation to the services it was registered for. Choksi argued that the mark was used for events hosted at his nightclub. However, the court held that such use did not qualify as valid trademark use within the relevant category.
It observed that the use of “SOCIAL HOUSE” was limited to nightlife and entertainment activities at Escobar, which fall under Class 41 of the trademark classification. In contrast, the trademark had been registered under Class 43, which pertains to hospitality services such as restaurants, cafés, and food outlets.
The court also reiterated that a trademark can be removed from the register if it is not used for the services it covers. It noted that exceptions to this rule apply only in specific circumstances that justify non-use, such as disruptions caused by events like the COVID-19 pandemic.
In contrast, Impresario was able to demonstrate consistent and long-standing use of the “SOCIAL” brand since 2014. The court further rejected the contention that the word “SOCIAL” is too generic to merit protection, stating that even commonly used terms can acquire distinctiveness if they become strongly associated with a particular business over time.
Accordingly, the court ruled in favour of Impresario, directing that the “SOCIAL HOUSE” trademark be removed from the register and dismissing Choksi’s applications seeking rectification of Impresario’s trademarks.
