Delhi High Court Cancels 'SOCIAL HOUSE' Mark For Non-Use; 'SOCIAL' Not Generic In Hospitality

Holding that the mark “SOCIAL” is not generic in the hospitality industry and that the rival mark had not been used for restaurant services, the Delhi High Court has ordered the removal of “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the register of trade marks.

Impressario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., which operates the “SOCIAL” chain of restaurants and cafes, approached the Delhi High Court seeking removal of the mark registered in the name of Vardhaman Choksi, arguing that it had not been used for restaurant services for over five years and was therefore liable to be cancelled under the Trade Marks Act.

In a ruling on April 10, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia allowed the appeal, holding that even though Choksi was the prior registrant, he could not show any real use of the mark for the very services it was registered for, namely restaurant services under Class 43.

What weighed with the court was the nature of the use claimed by the respondent. The material on record showed that the mark had only been used in relation to events hosted at his Mumbai establishment. That, the court clarified, falls in a different category altogether, one that deals with entertainment services under Class 41, and not restaurant services.

Choksi's attempt to explain the gap in use did not find favour either. The court was clear that pending litigation or fear of legal action cannot be treated as a valid excuse. Special circumstances, it said, must arise from external factors affecting the trade generally, not from individual business decisions or disputes between parties.

The court also examined the character of the mark itself. It held that “SOCIAL” is not a generic term in the hospitality space. Instead, it is a suggestive mark, one that requires a degree of imagination for a consumer to connect it with restaurant services. Over time, and through consistent use, the mark has come to be closely associated with Impressario's business.

“The evidence points towards Vardhaman Choksi being a squatter of Trade Marks. Vardhaman Choksi's approach of applying for Marks identical to globally renowned Marks reflects a deliberate practice of Trade Mark squatting. This manipulative tactic entails adopting, seeking registration of, or even securing registration for Trade Marks linked with established brands, with the calculated intent of later selling these rights at a premium to the genuine Trade Mark proprietors,” the court observed.

Such conduct undermines the sanctity of the Trade Mark Register and highlights the necessity to uphold and protect the rights of bona fide proprietors,” the court observed.

The bench also recorded that Impressario operates over 52 outlets across India and reported a turnover of Rs 589 crore in the 2024–25 financial year, establishing substantial goodwill in the mark “SOCIAL”.

In view of these findings, the court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to remove the mark “SOCIAL HOUSE” from the register.

The court also dismissed 22 rectification petitions filed by Choksi against Impressario's various “SOCIAL” formative marks.