Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt Ltd v. M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor

CS(COMM) 1150/2025 & I.As. 26615-18/2025

The Delhi High Court granted an ex parte ad-interim injunction in favor of Impresario Entertainment, who holds a registered trademark for 'SOCIAL' used across various hospitality services. The court found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case and that the balance of convenience lay in their favor, noting the defendant's prior withdrawal of its own application due to concerns over deceptive similarity. This interim order immediately restrains the defendant from using marks similar to 'SOCIAL', including variations like 'SOCIAL KITCHEN'.

Jurisdiction
India
Court
Delhi High Court - Orders
Case Number
CS(COMM) 1150/2025 & I.As. 26615-18/2025
Judge(s)
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Practitioner Note

This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in trademark matters before Delhi High Court - Orders. Understanding the court's reasoning in Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs M/S. Social Kitchen Through Its Proprietor is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.

Related Cases

trademarkNotice of Motion No. 3963 of 2009 in Suit No. 2861 of 2009

Rajesh Chheda (Prop. Of Sbhubham Plywood)vsShubham Plywood Park

The Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' motion for interim relief concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The court found that the registered mark 'SHUBHAM' was not being used in conjunction with the plaintiff's specific logo or on the product itself by the defendant. Furthermore, the judge noted that 'SHUBHAM' is a common word and household term, making it difficult to grant exclusivity against all users of the name. The court emphasized that merely adopting a common shop name is insufficient grounds for an injunction.

trademarkFAO(OS) 36/2012

Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd.vsAdvance Magazine Publishers Inc.

This case involved a dispute over the use of the trade mark 'VOGUE' by Just Lifestyle Pvt. Ltd., which was accused of infringement and passing off by Advance Magazine Publishers Inc. The core legal battle revolved around whether the court had territorial jurisdiction to hear the suit, particularly after the appellant changed its name and corporate structure. The Delhi High Court ultimately ruled against the respondents' attempt to amend the plaint, finding that the jurisdictional issue must be determined based on the date the suit was originally filed.

trademarkFAO No. 472/2011

Levi Strauss & CompanyvsNizami Garments

The Delhi High Court granted interim relief in favor of Levi Strauss & Company against Nizami Garments in a trademark infringement suit. The court found that the plaintiff had made out a prima facie case regarding the deceptive similarity of the defendant's use of 'Levi's' marks on apparel. Consequently, the existing order denying an injunction was set aside, and a Local Commissioner was appointed to seize all infringing goods and relevant business records from the defendant's premises.

trademarkIP Suit (L) No.1440 of 2018

Hindustan Unilever LimitedvsReva Sree Industries

Hindustan Unilever Limited filed an IP suit against Reva Sree Industries alleging that the latter was using a mark (OK WELL) and trade dress deceptively similar to HUL's established marks (OK and WHEEL) and packaging. The Bombay High Court granted leave under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent Act and passed an ad-interim injunction.

trademarkFAO(OS) 109/2011

Bhole Baba Milk Food Industries Ltd.vsParul Food Specialities Pvt. Ltd.

The Delhi High Court addressed an appeal concerning the use of the trademark 'KRISHNA' in dairy products. The court ruled that a common word, even if associated with a deity like Lord Krishna (who is linked to milk and butter), cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Furthermore, the court held that when a defendant uses a disputed mark prefixed by other words ('PARUL'S LORD KRISHNA'), confusion regarding the source of goods is unlikely, provided those prefix words are given equal prominence as the core trademark. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the interim relief granted to the respondent.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

Facing a trademark dispute?

Arctic's TM litigation team handles ~120 trademark matters per year across India, EU, and UK. From oppositions to infringement actions, we build winning arguments from precedent.

Talk to our TM team →

Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar trademark matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call