By Deepika Srivastav and Pallavi Paul
The Bombay High Court has recently granted interim relief to the renowned restaurant and bar chain ‘Social’ in a trademark infringement lawsuit filed against a restaurant operating under the name ‘Social Tribe’ in Mumbai. [1]
Brief Facts
Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the ‘plaintiff’) is the operator of several well-known restaurants and cafés across India, including the widely recognized ‘SOCIAL’, which it has been running since its inception in 2001.
The plaintiff currently manages and operates fifty (50) SOCIAL outlets nationwide and is the registered proprietor of the trademark ‘SOCIAL’ and its variations thereof across multiple trademark classes – including but not limited to Classes 43, 42, 41, 35, 33, 32, 30, 25, 21, 16 and 9. Notably, the plaintiff holds over one hundred (100) trademark registrations for ‘SOCIAL’ and its variations thereof under Class 43 alone.
The plaintiff has demonstrated consistent vigilance in safeguarding its intellectual property, as evidenced by favourable injunctions granted by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in various trademark infringement cases pertaining to the unauthorized use of the ‘SOCIAL’ mark and its variations.
In July 2022, the plaintiff became aware that a restaurant in Mumbai was operating under the name ‘SOCIAL TRIBE’, a name bearing a striking resemblance to its well-established brand ‘SOCIAL’. Prior to initiating legal proceedings, the plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice to the defendant. Despite this formal notice and subsequent follow-ups, the defendant failed to respond or take corrective action. Thus, in view of its rights as the registered proprietor of the ‘SOCIAL’ trademarks and considering the continued use was likely to cause harm, loss of goodwill and brand dilution, the plaintiff approached the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay seeking injunctive relief to restrain the Defendant from further misuse of the mark.
Findings of the Hon’ble Court
The Court observed that the manner in which the defendant has used the word ‘Social’ is deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark. The mere addition of the suffix ‘Tribe’ does not dilute or distinguish the infringing mark and it was evident that the defendant had deliberately adopted a mark that comes as close as possible to the plaintiff’s registered mark with an intent to infringe. Furthermore, the Court noted that both parties are engaged in offering identical services, and the defendant has used a color scheme similar to that of the plaintiff’s mark, further enhancing the likelihood of confusion in the minds of the public.
| Plaintiff’s Mark | Defendant’s Mark |
 |
 |
The Court held that the defendant has made a brazen and deliberate attempt to infringe upon the plaintiff’s trademark, which warranted immediate restraint. It was further held that in the absence of such restraint, the plaintiff despite having established a prima facie case, would suffer irreparable loss, harm, and prejudice. Since the balance of convenience laid in favor of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the ‘SOCIAL’ mark and its variations, the Hon’ble Court granted an ex-parte injunction, restraining the defendants from rendering any services under the infringing mark or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s ‘SOCIAL’ marks and its variations.
Trademark Rights
The defendant’s application for registration of the mark 
(vide application no. 5480934) was opposed by the plaintiff on April 17, 2025. Notably, the mark has also been opposed by a third party for their rights in the mark. Both the notices of opposition have been duly served upon the defendant, who has been granted a period of two months to file a counterstatement in support of their application.
Concluding Thoughts
In this case, the Court reaffirmed the well-established principle in trademark law, that where a substantial or dominant part of the plaintiff’s trademark is copied, infringement is likely, irrespective of minor additions or variations. By emphasising the visual and phonetic similarities between the competing marks and taking note of the similarity in color schemes, the Court recognised that trademark infringement extends beyond the literal word mark.
Further, the ruling underscores the critical role of proactive enforcement by trademark proprietors. The plaintiff’s ability to demonstrate a long-standing commercial presence, multiple trademark registrations, and prompt legal actions was instrumental in securing the relief. The Court validated that the principle that trademark infringement is not merely a commercial wrong but an ongoing threat to brand equity, warranting timely intervention.
This case also highlights the importance of responding to cease-and-desist notices. Responding to cease-and-desist letters is not merely a formality but a crucial step in effectively addressing trademark disputes. It provides the recipient an opportunity to clarify their position, challenge any incorrect claims, and potentially resolve the issue without escalating to litigation. Ignoring such a notice can be construed as an admission of bad faith, thus increasing the likelihood of a lawsuit, injunction and enhanced damages. A timely response not only helps to preserves legal defences but may also help to avoid unnecessary legal proceedings.
[1] Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Private Limited v. M/s. Social Tribe COM IP SUIT (L) No. 6574 of 2024