Well-Known Means Wider Protection: Delhi HC Restrains Use of ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’

Can a party adopt a mark that incorporates the entirety of a well-known trademark by merely adding another word to distinguish its services? The Delhi High Court answered in the negative in Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Social Circle,¹ granting an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’ or any identical or deceptively similar variation in relation to restaurant and hospitality services. Justice Vikas Mahajan held that the defendant’s mark was prima facie identical and deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademark ‘SOCIAL’, observing that the addition of the word “CIRCLE” did not sufficiently distinguish the impugned mark from the plaintiff’s mark. The Court placed significant reliance on the earlier declaration of ‘SOCIAL’ as a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999,² holding that such recognition strengthened the plaintiff’s claim for interim protection.

The decision highlights the enhanced protection available to well-known trademarks and reiterates that a party cannot avoid infringement merely by adding a descriptive or additional expression to a mark where the dominant and source-identifying feature remains identical. It also demonstrates the importance of prior judicial recognition of a trademark’s reputation while assessing the strength of a plaintiff’s prima facie case.

Background of the Dispute

Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., the plaintiff, operates a chain of restaurants and bars under the brand name ‘SOCIAL’ and has been engaged in the hospitality sector since 2001. The plaintiff adopted the trademark ‘SOCIAL’ in 2012 and is the registered proprietor of the mark along with more than 100 trademark registrations covering the mark and its variants.

The plaintiff currently operates 52 ‘SOCIAL’ outlets across India and placed substantial evidence regarding the commercial reputation and goodwill attached to the brand. For the financial year 2024-25, the plaintiff’s ‘SOCIAL’ brand recorded revenue of Rs. 589.39 crores, with promotional expenditure exceeding Rs. 29 crores. The plaintiff also relied upon an earlier order of the Delhi High Court dated 9 January 2026, wherein the mark ‘SOCIAL’ was declared a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The dispute arose after the plaintiff discovered that M/s Social Circle, the defendant, was operating and promoting restaurant and bar services under the mark ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’. The defendant’s services were advertised through third-party platforms including Zomato, Swiggy, Google Maps, Justdial, and Magicpin. The plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice dated 18 September 2024, but the defendant failed to respond or discontinue use of the impugned mark.

The plaintiff subsequently discovered that the defendant had also filed a trademark application for ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’in Class 43 on a proposed-to-be-used basis. The application, however, was later abandoned due to non-prosecution. Aggrieved by the defendant’s continued use of the mark, the plaintiff approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection against infringement and passing off.

‘SOCIAL’ Remains the Dominant Element

While considering the prayer for interim injunction, the Court examined whether the defendant’s mark ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’ was deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered mark ‘SOCIAL’. The Court observed that the comparison between the two marks demonstrated that the defendant had adopted a mark containing the entirety of the plaintiff’s registered trademark. The Court found that the word ‘SOCIAL’ constituted the dominant and essential feature of both marks. The addition of the word “CIRCLE” did not materially alter the overall commercial impression created by the defendant’s mark, particularly because both parties operated in the same field of restaurant and hospitality services. A consumer encountering ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’ could reasonably assume an association, affiliation, expansion, or connection with the plaintiff’s established ‘SOCIAL’ brand.

The Court’s reasoning reflects the settled principle that deceptive similarity must be assessed from the perspective of the overall impression created by the competing marks, rather than by examining the additional words in isolation. Where the essential feature of a registered trademark is reproduced, the mere addition of another expression may not be sufficient to avoid infringement.

Effect of Well-Known Trademark Status

A significant aspect of the Court’s reasoning was the earlier declaration of ‘SOCIAL’ as a well-known trademark. The Court relied upon its previous order recognising the enhanced reputation and goodwill acquired by the plaintiff’s mark, treating the declaration as a strong indicator of the mark’s distinctiveness and commercial strength. The recognition of a trademark as well-known under Section 2(1)(zg) carries broader protection because such marks are entitled to protection against unauthorised use even beyond the specific goods and services for which they are registered, where such use is likely to dilute or harm the reputation of the mark. In the present case, the plaintiff’s prior judicial recognition, coupled with extensive commercial use, registrations, nationwide presence, and substantial revenue generation, significantly strengthened its claim for protection.

The Court did not require the plaintiff to establish afresh the reputation of the mark at the interim stage. Instead, the earlier declaration operated as an important factor demonstrating that ‘SOCIAL’ had acquired a strong identity in the hospitality industry and enjoyed significant consumer recognition.

Balance of Convenience Favoured the Plaintiff

The Court further held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff had produced documentary evidence demonstrating longstanding use of the mark, substantial investment in promotion, and extensive goodwill associated with ‘SOCIAL’. On the other hand, the defendant failed to demonstrate any competing rights that could outweigh the plaintiff’s established trademark rights. The Court also noted that the defendant’s trademark application for ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’ had been abandoned due to non-prosecution, weakening any claim based on pending registration proceedings. Allowing the defendant to continue using the impugned mark during the pendency of the proceedings would create a likelihood of consumer confusion and potentially dilute the distinctiveness attached to the plaintiff’s well-known trademark.

The Court therefore concluded that the plaintiff had established a strong prima facie case and that continued use of the impugned mark would result in irreparable harm to the goodwill and reputation built around the ‘SOCIAL’ brand. Accordingly, the Delhi High Court restrained the defendant, along with its directors, officers, employees, agents, distributors, affiliates, franchisees, licensees, representatives, and all persons acting on its behalf, from using ‘SOCIAL CIRCLE’ or any other mark deceptively similar to ‘SOCIAL’ for restaurant, bar, hospitality, or allied services. The injunction also extended to advertising, marketing, selling, supplying, and other commercial dealings under the impugned mark.

The order reinforces that well-known trademarks enjoy a higher degree of protection against attempts to appropriate their commercial identity. It also reiterates that adding a generic or additional word to a registered mark will not necessarily protect a defendant from infringement where the dominant element of the plaintiff’s mark remains unchanged. For businesses operating in consumer-facing industries, the decision serves as a reminder that adopting a mark closely resembling an established brand carries significant legal risks, particularly where the original mark has already acquired judicial recognition as well-known.

Citations

1. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s Social Circle, CS(COMM) 1033/2026 ↩︎
2. The Trade Marks Act, 1999, s.  2(1)(zg) ↩︎

Expositor(s): Adv. Pratistha Dahiya