Delhi High Court – Orders
Impresario Entertainment And … vs Sid Luxury Homes Llp on 10 April, 2026
Author: Tushar Rao Gedela
Bench: Tushar Rao Gedela
$~21
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ CS(COMM) 380/2026
IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT. LTD.
.....Plaintiff
Through: Ms. Shikha Sachdev, Mr. Annie Jacob
and Mr. Jaskaran Bindra, Advocates.
versus
SID LUXURY HOMES LLP .....Defendant
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TUSHAR RAO GEDELA
ORDER
% 10.04.2026
I.A. 9769/2026 (Additional Documents)
1. The present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under
Order XI Rule 1(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (‘CPC‘) as
applicable to commercial suits under the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 (‘CC
Act‘) seeking leave to place on record additional documents.
2. The plaintiff is permitted to file additional documents in accordance
with the provisions of the CC Act and the Delhi High Court (Original Side)
Rules, 2018.
3. Accordingly, the application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9771/2026 (Pre-Institution Mediation)
4. This is an application filed by the plaintiff seeking exemption from
instituting pre-litigation Mediation under Section 12A of the CC Act.
5. As the present matter contemplates urgent interim relief, in light of the
judgment of the Supreme Court in Yamini Manohar vs. T.K.D. Keerthi:
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 1 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
(2024) 5 SCC 815, exemption from the requirement of pre-institution
Mediation is granted.
6. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9770/2026 (Exemption)
7. This is an application filed on behalf of the plaintiffs under Section 151
of CPC seeking exemption from filing original documents along with the
captioned suit.
8. Exemption allowed, subject to just exceptions. However, original
documents be filed within four weeks with an advance copy to the defendant.
9. The application stands disposed of.
I.A. 9768/2026 (Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2, CPC)
10. Present application has been filed on behalf of the plaintiff under Order
XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 of CPC, 1908 seeking ex-parte ad-interim injunction
against the defendant.
11. Plaintiff claims that it is a company incorporated under the Companies
Act, 1956 and having its registered office in Mumbai and carrying out
business in Delhi from its corporate office at New Delhi. Plaintiff claims that
in the year 2011-2012, thought of a unique concept of blending the best of
office and cafe by offering to the general public a collaborative work space
and a multi cuisine. Plaintiff further claims that the trademark “SOCIAL” was
adopted in respect of such cafes. The first “SOCIAL” restaurant/bar of the
plaintiff was opened in the year 2014 in Bengaluru.
12. Plaintiff claims that since the business model of the plaintiff was to
open multiple “SOCIAL” restaurants/bars in one city, they coined the unique
concept of prefixing the trademark “SOCIAL” with the particular area of the
city in which the restaurant/bar would be located. Plaintiff claims that it also
represents the trademark “SOCIAL” in the distinctive stencil font and
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 2 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
purchased rights in the distinctive stencil font and purchased rights in the
distinctive stencil font to represent the trademark “SOCIAL” in the color
orange in the stencil font. The same is enumerated in para 8 of the plaint is
extracted hereunder:-
The depiction of the trademark “SOCIAL” in the stencil font amounts
to ‘artistic work’ under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957, which has
been created by the plaintiff.
13. Plaintiff claims that it has set up, is managing and operating fifty-two
(52) “SOCIAL” restaurants/bars pan India including places like Delhi NCR,
Chandigarh, Dehradun, Mumbai, Pune, Goa, Bengaluru, Hyderabad, Kolkata
and Lucknow.
14. Plaintiff claims that it is the registered proprietor of the trademark
“SOCIAL” and its variants in various classes. It further claims that it has over
a hundred registrations for the trademark “SOCIAL” and its variants, which
are being filed in the present proceedings. The list detailing the plaintiff’s
registrations for the trademark “SOCIAL” and its formatives in class 43 as
enumerated in para 13 of the plaint and some of them are extracted
hereunder:-
S.No. Trademark Reg.No. Class Date Of Date Of
Application Use
1 SOCIAL 3544303 43 May 8, 2017 February
01, 2014
2 3387388 43 October 14, August
2016 06, 2014CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 3 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
3 6448671 43 May 24, February
2024 24, 2014
4 2736070 43 May 13, March 03,
2014 2014
5 2975785 43 June 01, May 11,
2015 2015
6 5310138 43 February 02, Proposed to
2022 be used
7 4048793 43 January 07, August 22,
2019 2018
8 5001192 43 June 11, November
2021 20, 2020
9 SOCIAL OFFLINE 2781081 43 July 25, February
2014 01, 2014
10 2382250 43 August 21, August 08,
2012 2012
11 2382253 43 August 21, August 08,
2012 2012
12 3082317 43 October 20, Proposed to
2015 be used
15. Plaintiff claims that it also owns and operates an exclusive website at
<www.socialoffline.in>. Plaintiff claims that the website is dedicated solely to
the plaintiff’s business, products, restaurants and/or bars under “SOCIAL”
trademark. The plaintiff also advertises all its restaurants, including
“SOCIAL” restaurants/bars on its group/corporate website
<https://impresario.in/>. Plaintiff claims that “SOCIAL” marks also enjoy
extensive and widespread social media presence. The plaintiff is active on
popular social networking sites such as Instagram, Facebook, Twitter and
YouTube. The screenshot features the internet presence of plaintiff’s
trademark “SOCIAL” and its variants on social media as enumerated in para
20 of the plaint. The same is extracted hereunder:-
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 4 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
SOCIAL MEDIA SCREENSHOT
https:/www.facebook.com/Social
Offline
(Followers:
66,000)
https://www.instagram.com/social
offline/
(Followers:
1,80.000)
YouTube
https://www.instagram.com/social
offline/
(Followers:
1,80,000)
16. Plaintiff claims that its restaurants are also listed on several third-party
restaurant search engine guides such as Zomato, Swiggy, Dineout, Eazydiner
etc and also deliver food/beverages through its own website
https://order.socialoffline.in/. Plaintiff claims that its restaurant “SOCIAL”
has been featured in Bollywood films being Tamasha, Gully Boy, Rockstar
and OTT movies/series such as Made in Heaven, Moving in with Malaika
Arora etc. Plaintiff further claims that in the year 2024, also collaborated with
Nestle India to launch a test phase for Maggi Professional’s plant-based
menu.
17. Plaintiff’s net revenue owing to its sale under the brand “SOCIAL” as
enumerated in para 24 of the plaint disclosing the net revenue in the year
2014-2015 at Rs.39,26,05,034/- which reached net revenue of
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 5 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
Rs.5,89,39,64,082/- in the year 2024-2025. The plaintiff has spent substantial
amounts on advertisement and promotion under the brand “SOCIAL” which
has been detailed in para 25 of the plaint. In the year 2014-2015 the expenses
were approximately Rs.8,44,933/- while in the year 2024-2025 it reached
Rs.29,19,78,858/-.
18. Plaintiff also claims that the trademarks SOCIAL/ , has
been declared to be a well-known trademark under Section 2(1)(zg) of the
Trade Marks Act, 1999 by this Court vide its order dated 09.01.2026 in
CS(COMM) 121/2025 titled “Impresario Entertainment & Hospitality Pvt.
Ltd. Vs. M/S The Shake Social Through Its Proprietor”.
19. Plaintiff claims that the trademark “SOCIAL” has been obtaining
injunction orders from various courts/tribunals/regulatory bodies, including
this Court. The details as enumerated in para 28 of the plaint is extracted
hereunder:
S.NO Case Number/Title Infringing Trade Date of Order
Mark
1 CS(COMM) 121/2025 09/01/2026
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs M/s The
Shake Social through its
Proprietor
2 CS(COMM) 1150/2025 29.10.2025
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. M/s.
Social Kitchen Thr its Proprietor
3 CS(COMM) 714/2024 27.08.2024
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt Ltd vs M/s Star
Hospitality
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 6 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
4 CS(COMM) 702/2023 06.10.2023
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. Vs. China
Social through its Proprietor
5 CS(COMM) 773/2022 11.11.2022
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. Vs. Social
Hub thr its Proprietor
6 CS(COMM) 826/2017 Social House 06.12.2017
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. Vs.
Vardhaman Choksi & Anr.
7 CS(COMM) 1663/2016 22.12.2016
Impresario Entertainment &
Hospitality Pvt Ltd. Vs. Mr.
Mohammad Wajahat Ali,
Proprietor
20. Plaintiff claims that sometime in July 2025, it came to know that the
defendant is engaged in the hospitality business of providing serviced
apartment under the impugned trademark “SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED/
” in Hyderabad, Telangana. Upon conducting internet
searches into the defendant’s business, the plaintiff came to know that the
defendant is operating the domain name <https://www/siroyale.com/> and
also advertising its accommodation services under the impugned trademark
through several social networking websites including Instagram, Facebook,
YouTube, X, LinkedIn and on third-party websites including MakeMyTrip,
Goibibo, TripAdvisor, Booking.com, Google Maps etc. The defendant is also
operating an app under the impugned trademark on the IOS App Store.
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 7 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
21. Plaintiff further claims that upon conducting a search of the records
maintained by the Trade Marks Registry, the plaintiff came to know that in
November, 2024, the defendant filed an application for registration of the
impugned trademark “SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED” in Class 43. The
details of the impugned application are as below:
TRADE APPLICATION APPLICATION USER STATUS CLASS
MARK NO. DATE CLAIM
Social 6708991 14/11/2024 Proposed to Formalities 43
Living be used Chk Pass
Elevated
22. Plaintiff claims that it issued a Cease and Desist Notice dated July 18,
2025 demanding cessation of the plaintiff’s trademark “SOCIAL”, as part of
its trademark/name, to withdraw the impugned trademark application and
takedown the impugned trademark from all online and offline
listings/platforms/channels. Plaintiff further claims that it received a response
letter dated 14.08.2025 from defendant, refusing to cease and desist from
using and registering the impugned trademarks.
23. Plaintiff claims that the defendant’s house mark is “SID ROYALE”
and the defendant has no reasoning to adopt “SOCIAL” as a part of its
trademark.
24. Plaintiff claims that on account of continuous, extensive and exclusive
use and publicity by the plaintiff, the trademark SOCIAL of the plaintiff has
acquired immense goodwill, reputation and fame, such that the use of any
identical and/or deceptively similar mark/name, especially comprising of the
word “SOCIAL” by another trader not connected to plaintiff, in respect of any
goods or services whatsoever, is bound to cause confusion and deception in
the minds of consuming public and members of trade.
25. Predicated on the above, plaintiff seeks an ex-parte ad-interim
injunction.
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 8 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
26. Heard Ms.Shikha Sachdev, learned counsel for the plaintiff and perused
the documents and the plaint on record.
27. The comparison between the trademark of the plaintiff and defendant
as enumerated in para 32 are extracted hereunder:-
Plaintiff’s Trade Marks Defendant’s Manner of Use
SOCIAL SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED
28. From the above, it is clear that the trademark of the plaintiff “SOCIAL”
has been declared a well-known trademark by this Court and is thus entitled
to a higher statutory protection. The facts also reveal that the plaintiff has
almost 100 registrations of the mark “SOCIAL” and its formative marks and
has a large presence all over the country in various cities and has created a
brand exclusive to its trademark “SOCIAL”.
29. It is also noted that the defendant applied for the impugned mark
“SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED/ in class 43 on 14.11.2024 on a
“proposed to be used basis”. The documents reveal that the defendant offers
its services in Class 43 in relation to Service Apartments in Hyderabad.
Though the mark “SOCIAL” is not a predominant part of the the label of the
defendant, yet the trademark “SOCIAL” of the plaintiff is encompassed and
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 9 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
fully subsumed in the mark “SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED” of the
defendant. There does not appear to be any reason for the defendant to have
adopted the said registered mark of the plaintiff. The goods and services
offered by both the parties appear to be similar to the extent that the goods
and services offered by the defendant are allied and cognate to those of the
plaintiff.
30. There could be a clear issue of confusion in the minds of the unwary
general public with average intelligence and imperfect recollection as to
whether the goods and services availed of from the defendant are those of the
plaintiff or at least are associated with the plaintiff.
31. Thus, evidently, the plaintiff has been able to establish a strong prima
facie case in its favour and against the defendant. The balance of convenience,
keeping in view the documentary evidence of the plaintiffs registrations and
declaration of its mark “SOCIAL” as well known by this Court and the sheer
number of the registrations obtained by the plaintiff of the mark “SOCIAL”
and its various formative marks clearly tilt the balance in favour of the
plaintiff. The plaintiff shall suffer irreparable loss and injury which may not
be adequately compensated in monetary terms in case ex-parte ad-interim
injunction orders are not passed.
32. Accordingly, the following directions are passed:
a. Defendant, its directors, principals, proprietors, partners, officers,
employees, agents, distributors, suppliers, affiliates, subsidiaries,
franchisees, licensees, representatives, group companies and assignees
are restrained from using, offering its services, marketing and
advertising its business and/or allowing or permitting third parties to
use, market and/or advertise the trade mark “SOCIAL” and/or any
other trade mark or name identical and/or similar to the plaintiff’s trade
mark “SOCIAL” and its variants either as a trademark, trade name,CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 10 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
corporate name, domain name, social media handles, email address or
part thereof and/or in any other manner whatsoever.
b. Defendant is directed to remove all references of the impugned
trademark from all third-party websites where the defendant’s goods
and/or services are sold, offered for sale, promoted and/or advertised
under the impugned trademarks “SOCIAL LIVING ELEVATED/” and/or any other trademark identical/deceptively similar
to the plaintiff’s trademarks.
c. Defendant is directed to discontinue and provide to the plaintiff a full
and fair disclosure of all websites/domain names/email address
obtained by the defendant which is similar and/or contains the
plaintiff’s trademark “SOCIAL” within four weeks from service.
33. Issue notice.
34. Let a reply to this application be filed by the defendant within four
weeks from service. Rejoinder, thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks
thereafter.
35. Compliance of Order XXXIX Rule 3 of CPC shall be done within ten
(10) days from date.
CS(COMM) 380/2026
36. Let the plaint be registered as a suit.
37. Upon filing of the process fee, issue summons of the suit to the
defendant through all permissible modes.
38. The summons shall state that the Written Statement shall be filed by the
defendant within 30 days from the date of the receipt of summons. Alongwith
the Written Statement, the defendant shall also file Affidavit of
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 11 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
Admission/Denial of the documents of the plaintiff, without which the
Written Statement shall not be taken on record.
39. Liberty is granted to the plaintiff to file Replication, if any, within 30
days from the receipt of the Written Statement. Along with the Replication
filed by the plaintiff, an Affidavit of Admission/Denial of the documents of
defendant be filed by the plaintiff, without which the Replication shall not be
taken on record.
40. In case any party is placing reliance on a document, which is not in
their power and possession, its details and source shall be mentioned in the
list of reliance, which shall also be filed with the pleadings.
41. If any of the parties wish to seek inspection of any documents, the same
shall be sought and given within the prescribed timelines.
42. List before the Joint Registrar (Judicial) on 15.07.2026 for completion
of service and pleadings.
43. List before the Court on 04.08.2026.
TUSHAR RAO GEDELA, J
APRIL 10, 2026
rl
CS(COMM) 380/2026 Page 12 of 12
This is a digitally signed order.
The authenticity of the order can be re-verified from Delhi High Court Order Portal by scanning the QR code shown above.
The Order is downloaded from the DHC Server on 15/04/2026 at 21:00:14
