Impresario Entertainment And ... vs M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its ... on 29 October, 2025

[Cites 5, Cited by 0]

Delhi High Court - Orders

Impresario Entertainment And ... vs M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its ... on 29 October, 2025

Author: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Bench: Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

                          $~43
                          *         IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
                          +         CS(COMM) 1150/2025 & I.As. 26615-18/2025
                                    IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT
                                    LTD                                          .....Plaintiff
                                                 Through: Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Ms. Kriti
                                                          Rathi, Mr. Jaydeep Roy and Ms.
                                                          Annie Jacob, Advocates

                                                                  versus

                                    M/S. SOCIAL KITCHEN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR
                                                                             .....Defendant
                                                   Through: None

                          CORAM:
                          HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA
                                            ORDER

% 29.10.2025 I.A. 26618/2025 (for seeking exemption from pre-institution mediation)

1. This is an application under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ['CPC'], filed by the Plaintiff seeking exemption from instituting pre- litigation mediation.

2. Having regard to the facts that the present suit contemplates urgent interim relief, and in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar v. T.K.D. Keerthi1, exemption from the requirement of pre- institution mediation is granted to the Plaintiff.

3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.

(2024) 5 SCC 815 CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 1 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

4. This is an application filed by the Plaintiff under Section 151 of CPC, seeking exemption from filing originals of the documents, the copies of which have been filed with the suit.

5. Original documents shall be produced/filed at the time of Admission/Denial, if sought, strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

6. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of. I.A. 26616/2025 (seeking leave to file additional documents)

7. This is an application seeking leave to file additional documents under Order XI Rule 1(4) of CPC [as amended by the Commercial Courts Act, 2015], seeking leave to file additional documents within thirty (30) days.

8. The Plaintiff, if it wishes to file additional documents, will file the same within thirty (30) days from today, and it shall do so strictly as per the provisions of the Commercial Courts Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 ('DHC Rules').

9. For the reasons stated in the application, the same is allowed.

10. Accordingly, the application is disposed of. CS(COMM) 1150/2025

11. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.

12. Summons be issued to Defendant by all permissible modes on filing of the process fee. Affidavit of service be filed within two (2) weeks.

13. The summons shall indicate that the written statement must be filed within thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the summons. The Defendant shall also file an affidavit of admission/denial of the documents CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 2 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

14. The Plaintiff is at liberty to file replication thereto within thirty (30) days after filing of the written statement. The replication shall be accompanied by an affidavit of admission/denial in respect of the documents filed by the Defendant, failing which the replication shall not be taken on record.

15. It is made clear that any unjustified denial of documents may lead to an order of costs against the concerned party.

16. Any party seeking inspection of documents may do so in accordance with the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

17. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 16.12.2025.

18. List before Court on 09.04.2026.

I.A. 26615/2025(application under Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 CPC seeking interim injunction)

19. The present application under order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the CPC, has been filed by the Plaintiff, seeking ex parte ad- interim injunction against the Defendant.

20. The present suit has been filed by the Plaintiff/Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., seeking enforcement and protection of its trademark SOCIAL, used in respect of restaurants, coffee shops and other eating outlets.

21. Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, learned counsel for the Plaintiff, sets up the Plaintiff's case as under:

21.1. The Plaintiff is engaged in the business of providing restaurant services, including but not limited to conducting, managing and operating CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 3 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

21.2. The Plaintiff is running various restaurants and coffee shops, including Smoke House Deli, Mocha Café and Bar, Bandra Born, Banng, Slink & Bardot, The Tasting Room, Prithvi Café and Social, and has also received various awards in respect of its popular SOCIAL restaurants/bars for excellence in the hospitality industry.

21.3. The Plaintiff in the year 2011-2012, thought of a unique concept of blending the best of office and café by offering to the general public a collaborative workspace and a multi-cuisine restaurant. The trademark SOCIAL was adopted in respect of such cafes. She states that the first such SOCIAL restaurant/bar of the Plaintiff was opened in the year 2014 in Bengaluru.

21.4. The Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trademark SOCIAL and its variants in classes 43, 42, 41, 35, 33, 32, 30, 25, 21, 16 and 09. The Plaintiff has over a hundred registrations for the trademark SOCIAL and its variants ['SOCIAL marks'].

21.5. The Plaintiff has a registration for the wordmark SOCIAL bearing TM no. 3544303 in class 43, application dated 08.05.2017, with claiming use since 01.02.2014. Details of Plaintiff's various registrations have been set out in paragraph '12' of the plaint.

21.6. The Plaintiff has also purchased rights in the distinctive stencil font to represent the trademark SOCIAL in orange colour in the stencil font .

21.7. The Plaintiff's business model was to open multiple SOCIAL CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 4 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56 restaurants/bars in one city, for which they developed the unique concept of prefixing the trademark SOCIAL with the name of the specific area in which each restaurant or bar would be located.

21.8. The Plaintiff created these trademarks based on the area of the city where the SOCIAL establishment was opening, in order to inform the general public about the location of each café and to indicate which one would be nearest for a visit, like / / / .

The Plaintiff is managing and operating fifty-four (54) SOCIAL restaurants/bars pan India.

21.9. The Plaintiff also owns and operates an exclusive website at www.socialoffline.in. Additionally, Plaintiff also advertises all its restaurants, including SOCIAL restaurants/bars on its group and its corporate website https://impresario.in, and is also active on popular social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and YouTube, having substantial public engagement with a large number of followers, as has been set out in paragraph '19' of the plaint.

21.10.The Plaintiff's restaurants are also listed on several third-party restaurant search engine guides such as Zomato, Swiggy, Dineout, Eazydiner, etc. 21.11.The revenue generated under the trademark SOCIAL in the financial CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 5 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56 year of 2024-2025 is Rs. 5,89,39,64,082 (i.e., Rs. 589.39 crores), as tabulated in paragraph '23' of the plaint. The Plaintiff has also incurred expenses of Rs. 29,19,78,858 (i.e., Rs. 29.19 crores) towards promotion and advertisement of the trademark SOCIAL, as tabulated in paragraph '22' of the plaint.

By virtue of such extensive sales and promotion, the trademark SOCIAL has achieved wide fame and a reputation pan-India. Knowledge about the Defendant 21.12.The Defendant is engaged in the business of providing food and drink, catering and restaurant services, as well as operating restaurants/cafes/cafeterias under the mark SOCIAL KITCHEN/ in the states of Kerala (Palakkad and Kochi) and Tamil Nadu (Coimbatore).

21.13.The Defendant is offering for sale and delivery of Udupi, Chinese and North Indian cuisine and beverages at its outlets under the aforesaid marks. To the Plaintiff's knowledge, the Defendant is running five (5) outlets. 21.14.The Defendant is also using the marks in its juice counter/bar under the name ICE BARREL BY SOCIAL KITCHEN/ .

To the Plaintiff's knowledge, the Defendant is offering for sale and delivery of beverages such as fruit juices, milkshakes, etc. at its outlets under the said name/mark in Palakkad and Kochi, Kerala and Coimbatore, CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 6 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.





                          21.15.The Defendant's marks SOCIAL KITCHEN/                                                           /ICE




                          BARREL BY SOCIAL KITCHEN/                                                              shall hereinafter be
                          referred to as the 'impugned marks'.

21.16.The Defendant is also advertising its restaurants/cafes in Palakkad, Kerala, on interactive search engine guides Zomato and Swiggy, as well as on social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram.

22. Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, counsel for the Plaintiff, states that the Defendant is also trying to expand as a chain in the south under the mark SOCIAL, which is identical to the Plaintiff's SOCIAL marks and concept. 22.1. She states the Plaintiff learnt that the Defendant is operating restaurants/cafes under the impugned marks sometime in the year 2022. She states that the Defendant, in May 2022, filed an application for the registration of the impugned mark bearing application no. 5465030 in class 43 claiming use since 13.10.2020. However, the Trade Marks Registry vide examination report dated 30.08.2022, raised objection under Section 11(1) of the Trademarks Act, 1999, on the basis of several of the Plaintiff's registrations of its SOCIAL marks.

The Defendant filed its reply to the examination report on 23.12.2022, CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 7 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56 claiming a difference in rival trademarks. The Defendant's reply dated 23.12.2022 was found unsatisfactory, and the Defendant thereafter voluntarily withdrew its application vide order dated 18.03.2024. She states that the Defendant's application was not advertised in the Trademarks Journal.

23. She states that the Plaintiff has sent four (4) cease-and-desist notices during the span of 2022-2025. The first cease-and-desist was sent on 19.07.2022, to which the Defendant sent a reply letter dated 31.08.2022, refusing to cease-and-desist from using and registering the impugned marks. The second cease-and-desist notice was issued on 14.03.2023, the third notice was issued on 26.04.2024, and the fourth and final notice was issued to the Defendant on 26.07.2025.

She states that the Defendant only replied to the first cease-and-desist notice and failed to respond to all the subsequent legal notices. She states that since the Defendant withdrew its application in 2024 before the Trademarks Registry, the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant would cease its infringing activities.

23.1. She states that the Defendant, in April 2024, found that the Defendant is operating the domain name https://socialkitchen.co.in, which also subsumes the Plaintiff's trademark SOCIAL in its entirety. 23.2. She states that there is no plausible explanation for the adoption of the impugned marks by the Defendant, other than to ride upon the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff's prior registered trademark SOCIAL. The Defendant, despite notice of the Plaintiff's intellectual property rights and the Plaintiff's objection to the use of the same, continues to operate the restaurants/cafes/bars bearing the impugned marks.

CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 8 of 11

This is a digitally signed order.

24. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the Plaintiff and has also perused the record.

25. Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff states that an advance service of the suit paper book was served upon the Defendant vide email, on 27.10.2025, on the e-mail address listed on the Defendant's website and its social medial handles. None appears on behalf of the Defendant despite the advance service.

26. A bare perusal of the plaint and comparison of the marks, it is prima facie evident that the impugned marks SOCIAL KITCHEN/ /ICE BARREL BY SOCIAL KITCHEN/ is visually, phonetically, structurally, and deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered SOCIAL marks.

27. This is a case of triple identity where the mark is deceptively similar, the services are identical, and the trade channel, as well as the consumer base, is identical. The Plaintiff, being the prior user, adopter, and the registered owner of the trademark SOCIAL, are entitled to protection. To an unwary consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, the marks are likely to appear identical, thereby leading the consumers to associate the Defendant's business with that of the Plaintiff.

28. The Plaintiff has registered marks; it has issued and served several CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 9 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56 cease-and-desist notices to the Defendant, which have remained unanswered; the Defendant has elected not to remain present despite advance service. In these facts, it prima facie appears that the Defendant is choosing to ignore the proprietary claim of the Plaintiff in its registered mark and has no reasonable defence.

29. The proceedings before the Trademarks Registry noted at paragraph '23.1' above, wherein Defendant unilaterally withdrew its application no. 5465030 also shows that Defendant is conscious about the deceptive similarity of the marks.

30. In view of the averments made in the application and the submissions made by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff has made out a prima facie case in their favour. Since the Plaintiff has a registered trademark of SOCIAL, and has been using it for the past decade, the balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff for the grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction against the Defendant. Defendant's actions, if not restrained, might cause the Plaintiff to suffer irreparable harm, loss and injury not only to its monetary loss but also to the Plaintiff's brand identity and misrepresentation of its services in the marketplace.

31. Accordingly, until the next date of hearing, the following direction is issued:

i. The Defendant, their partners, principals, proprietor, directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, franchisees, suppliers, licensees, affiliates, subsidiaries representatives, group companies and assignees is/ are restrained from using, offering its services, marketing and advertising its business and/or allowing or permitting third parties to use, market and/or CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 10 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56 advertise the impugned marks SOCIAL KITCHEN/ /ICE BARREL BY SOCIAL KITCHEN/ and/or any other trade mark or name identical and/or similar to the Plaintiff's trademark SOCIAL and its formatives either as a trademark, trade name, corporate name, domain name, social media handles or part thereof and/or in any other manner whatsoever.

32. Issue Notice to the Defendant, through all permissible modes, upon filing of process fees, returnable on the next date of hearing.

33. Compliance with Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC be done within a period of two (2) weeks from today.

34. List before the learned Joint Registrar (J) on 16.12.2025.

35. List before Court on 09.04.2026.

36. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as a certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of the order shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J OCTOBER 29, 2025/rhc/aa CS(COMM) 1150/2025 Page 11 of 11 This is a digitally signed order.

The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above. The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 03/11/2025 at 22:04:56

Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Delhi High Court - Orders