- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court restricts using the trademark 'Social' by Jamshedpur eatery
Delhi High Court restricts using the trademark 'Social' by Jamshedpur eatery
The Delhi High Court has granted an interim injunction in favor of co-working cafe chain Social. It has restrained Social 75, a Jamshedpur, Jharkhand, restaurant, from using the registered trademark.
While hearing the Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality vs Social 75 case, the bench comprising Justice Jyoti Singh observed that the offending trademark was deceptively like that of Social.
The bench reasoned, "The plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for grant of ex parte ad-interim injunction, as the impugned trademark is deceptively similar to the registered trademark of the plaintiff. The balance of convenience lies in favor of the plaintiff, and it is likely to suffer irreparable harm in case the injunction, as prayed for, is not granted."
The plaintiff approached the high court after finding that the defendant had filed a trademark application for Social 75.
It submitted that the defendant had intentionally used 75 as a suffix to the trademark Social. The intent was to indicate to the public that the plaintiff had opened its 75th Social café in Jamshedpur. The plaintiff argued that it was aimed at misrepresenting to the public that the plaintiff was the source of these goods.
The bench directed the proprietors of Social 75 and all associated with it to remove all references to the trademark Social from third-party websites, where its goods or services were being sold, promoted, and advertised.
The court ordered, "The plaintiff shall comply with the provisions of Order 39 Rule 3 CPC within 10 days."
The court also issued notice and summons to the defendants and directed them to file an affidavit of admission or denial of the documents filed by the plaintiff.
The hearing has been scheduled for November 31.