You Can’t Shake Social: Delhi High Court Recognises Social As Well-Known Trademark

Summary

The Delhi High Court in the case Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/S The Shake Social through its Proprietor CS(COMM) 121/2025, relating about one of India’s most popular café-bar chains, “SOCIAL”, seeking to protect its brand against a smaller entity using a similar name. The Plaintiff, Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., operates the well-known “SOCIAL” outlets across India. The Defendant, operating under the name “The Shake Social”, was running cafés in Gujarat under a mark that the court found deceptively similar.

The court not only granted an injunction restraining the Defendant from committing trademark infringement and passing off, but also took the significant step of declaring “SOCIAL” (along with its device/logo) as a “well-known trademark” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Such recognition affords the Plaintiff’s mark an enhanced level of protection across all classes and goods and services, extending beyond direct competitors.

Facts of the Case

The Plaintiff operates in the restaurant and hospitality sector and is widely known for its “SOCIAL” branded café-bars, which combine a workspace environment with café culture. The first “SOCIAL” outlet was launched in Bengaluru in 2014, built around the concept of blending an office-like setting with a vibrant café atmosphere and a multi-cuisine menu.

Over time, the Plaintiff expanded to approximately 55 outlets across India. Each outlet is typically prefixed with the name of the locality such as “Hauz Khas Social” or “Koramangala Social”, enabling customers to easily identify the specific branch. The “SOCIAL” mark and its logo have thus become central to the Plaintiff’s brand identity.

This growth has been supported by substantial marketing efforts and a strong online presence. The Plaintiff operates the website socialoffline.in and maintains active accounts on Instagram, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube. It is also listed on major food and dining platforms such as Zomato, Swiggy, Dineout, and Eazydiner. In the financial year 2023–24 alone, the Plaintiff incurred promotional expenditure of approximately ₹29.93 crore and generated a turnover of about ₹475.17 crore under the “SOCIAL” marks.

In August 2022, the Plaintiff discovered that the Defendant was operating cafés in Valsad and Navsari, Gujarat under the mark “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” along with a corresponding logo. The Defendant offered beverages and desserts and promoted its business on platforms including Zomato, Swiggy, Google Maps, Justdial, Magicpin, Restaurant Guru, Facebook, and Instagram.

The Plaintiff further noted that the Defendant had applied for registration of “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” in Class 43, covering restaurant and related services. Online reviews allegedly indicated substandard product quality, which, according to the Plaintiff, posed a risk of reputational harm to its established “SOCIAL” brand.

Issues before the Court

The core questions that arose for consideration before the Court were as follows:

1. Whether the Defendant’s use of the mark “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” and its accompanying logo amounted to infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered “SOCIAL” word mark and associated device marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999?
2. Whether the Defendant’s adoption and use of the impugned mark amounted to passing off by misrepresenting to the public that its services were connected with, endorsed by, or otherwise with the Plaintiff?
3. Whether, on the basis of the evidence placed on record, the Plaintiff’s “SOCIAL” word mark and its device/logo satisfied the criteria for recognition as “well-known marks” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999?

Arguments

The Defendant failed to enter appearance despite service of summons and did not file a written statement. Consequently, the Court proceeded ex parte. In the absence of any denial or rebuttal, the averments in the plaint and the documents placed on record by the Plaintiff were treated as unrebutted and deemed admitted.

On behalf of the Plaintiff, it was submitted that it is the registered proprietor of the “SOCIAL” word mark and associated device marks in respect of restaurant and allied services. These marks have been used continuously and extensively since at least 2014 across multiple cities, supported by substantial turnover figures and significant promotional expenditure. Owing to such long, exclusive, and widespread use, the mark “SOCIAL” has acquired considerable goodwill and reputation, such that, in the context of cafés and restaurants, it is uniquely associated in the public mind with the Plaintiff.

It was further argued that the Defendant operates in the same field of hospitality and restaurant services, uses the word “SOCIAL” as a prominent and essential feature of its mark, and offers its services through identical trade channels, including physical outlets, food delivery platforms, online listings, and social media. The Plaintiff contended that the Defendant’s adoption of the mark “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” could not be bona fide, given the established reputation of the Plaintiff’s chain, and was clearly intended to ride upon the goodwill attached to the “SOCIAL” brand.

The Plaintiff also pointed out that cease-and-desist notices and other communications had been issued calling upon the Defendant to discontinue use of the impugned mark and withdraw its trademark application; however, the Defendant failed to comply. It was submitted that the use of a deceptively similar mark for identical services was likely to cause confusion among consumers, who might assume an association, franchise relationship, or endorsement by the Plaintiff. Additionally, online reviews indicating inferior quality of the Defendant’s offerings were cited as posing a tangible risk of reputational harm to the Plaintiff’s established brand.

On these grounds, the Plaintiff sought: (a) a decree of permanent and mandatory injunction restraining use of the impugned mark; (b) a declaration that “SOCIAL” and its logo qualify as well-known trademarks; and (c) consequential and ancillary reliefs.

Decision of the Court

At the outset, the Court noted the procedural position: since the Defendant had neither filed a written statement nor entered appearance, the averments in the plaint and the documents filed by the Plaintiff were deemed admitted in terms of the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018.

On the issues of infringement and passing off, the Court held that the Plaintiff had successfully established its statutory rights in the registered “SOCIAL” marks and demonstrated substantial goodwill and reputation through evidence of long-standing use, turnover, and promotional expenditure. The Defendant’s adoption of the mark “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” for identical restaurant and hospitality services was found likely to cause confusion in the course of trade. Given that both parties operated in the same sector and through similar channels of trade, consumers could reasonably assume an association or affiliation with the Plaintiff’s “SOCIAL” outlets. The Court observed that the Defendant, by using a deceptively similar mark, was seeking to capitalise on the Plaintiff’s established goodwill, thereby committing infringement of the registered trademarks as well as passing off. Accordingly, a clear case of infringement and passing off was made out, and the suit was decreed in favour of the Plaintiff, granting the relief of injunction as prayed.

On the question of recognition as a “well-known mark,” the Court examined the evidence placed on record, including continuous and uninterrupted use of the “SOCIAL” mark since at least 2014; its extensive presence and expansion across India in the hospitality sector; substantial turnover and significant promotional expenditure, including figures for FY 2023-24; strong online and offline visibility; and recognition within the industry. The Court also noted that the Plaintiff had actively enforced its rights in prior proceedings, reinforcing the distinctiveness and reputation of the mark. In view of these factors, the Court held that the “SOCIAL” word mark and its device satisfied the statutory criteria under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and formally declared them to be “well-known marks.” No separate order was passed on costs or damages; the principal reliefs granted were the permanent injunction and the declaration of well-known status.

Conclusion/Analysis

This judgment is significant for both brand protection and consumer confidence in India’s rapidly growing hospitality sector. It demonstrates that when a plaintiff consistently invests in building and maintaining a strong brand, through expansion, quality control, marketing, and active enforcement, courts are prepared to grant robust protection, including the coveted status of a “well-known trademark.”

For traders and entrepreneurs, the ruling sends a clear warning: adopting a name that closely resembles an established brand, particularly within the same line of business, carries substantial legal risk. The Court had little difficulty in inferring an intention to ride on the Plaintiff’s goodwill, especially given the overlap in services and trade channels. The absence of any defence from the Defendant further reinforced the Plaintiff’s case.

From a consumer protection perspective, the decision recognises that in the food and hospitality industry, brand names embody trust and experience. Consumers do not merely choose a café or bar for its menu, but for the reputation and ambience associated with the brand. A confusingly similar name used by a lower-quality establishment can erode that trust and dilute the goodwill painstakingly built by the original brand. By granting injunctive relief and declaring “SOCIAL” a well-known mark, the Court has effectively safeguarded that trust.

Finally, the case adds to the growing body of Indian jurisprudence where courts have conferred well-known status within contested proceedings, rather than solely through administrative recognition. For students and practitioners of intellectual property law, it offers a clear illustration of how factors such as turnover, advertising expenditure, online visibility, industry recognition, and consistent enforcement collectively establish that a mark is not merely popular, but legally “well-known.”