Delhi High Court Issues Notice in ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ Trademark Appeal, Refers Long-Running ‘SOCIAL’ Brand Dispute to Mediation
In a significant development in a long-running trademark battle in the hospitality sector, the Delhi High Court has issued notice in an appeal filed by Vardhaman Choksi, proprietor of the “SOCIAL HOUSE” trademark, while simultaneously referring the dispute with Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., owner of the well-known “SOCIAL” restaurant and café brand, to mediation. The move reflects the Court’s preference to explore an amicable resolution in a commercial intellectual property dispute that has been pending for several years.
The appeal came before a Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, challenging a 10 April 2026 judgment of a Single Judge. In that judgment, the Court had ordered the removal of the “SOCIAL HOUSE” trademark from the Register of Trade Marks on the ground of non-use and dismissed multiple rectification petitions filed by Choksi against various “SOCIAL” trademarks owned by Impresario Entertainment.
Appearing for the appellant, Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak informed the Division Bench that his client was willing to explore the possibility of a negotiated settlement. Senior Advocate C.M. Lall, representing Impresario Entertainment, stated that his client was not opposed to mediation. Recording the consensus, the High Court referred the parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre, while issuing notice on the appeal. The parties were directed to participate in mediation and were granted liberty to file written submissions before the next hearing.
According to the appellant, the “SOCIAL HOUSE” mark was adopted in 2011 and was allegedly used in connection with events organised at the ESCOBAR establishment in Mumbai, prior to the respondent’s commercial use of the “SOCIAL” brand. Choksi has argued that the Single Judge failed to properly appreciate evidence relating to prior adoption and bona fide use and wrongly concluded that the mark had not been genuinely used for the registered services under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
The April 2026 judgment under challenge had accepted Impresario’s contention that “SOCIAL HOUSE” had never been genuinely used in relation to the services for which it was registered and therefore deserved removal from the Trade Marks Register. The Court also rejected Choksi’s attempt to rectify numerous registrations containing the word “SOCIAL”, holding that Impresario had established continuous commercial use, substantial goodwill and reputation associated with its hospitality business.
The litigation forms part of a broader series of trademark disputes involving the “SOCIAL” brand. Earlier this year, the Delhi High Court declared “SOCIAL” to be a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, recognising that the mark had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning through extensive nationwide use, substantial turnover, advertising expenditure and consistent judicial enforcement. That recognition significantly strengthens the brand owner’s ability to prevent third parties from adopting deceptively similar marks in relation to hospitality and allied services.
The Division Bench has now listed the appeal for 21 August 2026, by which time the mediation process is expected to have progressed. If the parties reach a mutually acceptable settlement, it could bring to an end a dispute that has generated multiple proceedings before the Trade Marks Registry and the Delhi High Court. Failing settlement, the Court will proceed to examine the merits of the appeal, including questions relating to prior adoption, genuine use, non-use under Section 47, and the scope of protection available to the “SOCIAL” family of trademarks.
