Vardhaman Choksi And Anr. vs. Impresario Entertainment And Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. And Anr.

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment delivered on: 10/04/2026

+ C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & I.A. 4139/2024
IMPRESSARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY
PVT. LTD. .....Appellant
Versus

VARDHAMAN CHOKSI AND ORS. .....Respondents
AND
+ C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021
VARDHAMAN CHOKSI .....Petitioner
Versus
IMPRESARIO ENTERTAINMENT AND HOSPITALITY PVT.
LTD. AND ANR. .....Respondents
AND
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 98/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 194/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 264/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 269/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 333/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 406/2021
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 47/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 135/2022

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 1 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 152/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 197/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 200/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 254/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 259/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 552/2022
+ C.O. (COMM.IPD-TM) 681/2022

Advocates who appeared in this case

For the Petitioner : Mr. Chander M. Lall, Senior Advocate with
Ms. Shikha Sachdeva, Mr. Manish Dhir,
Ms. Kriti Rathi, Ms. Annie Jacob, Mr.
Jaskaran Singh Bindra & Ms. Annanya
Mehan, Advocates for Impressario
Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.

For the Respondents : Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan, Mr. Mustafa Alam,
Ms. Yashima Sharma, Mr. Lakshya
Kaushik, Mr. Sidharth Kausik, Ms.
Divyanshi Bansal, Mr. Parth Singh, Mr.
Amit Garg, Ms. Navya, Mr. Zubair Hanifi,
Ms. Saba Tasleem and Ms. Aalia,
Advocates for Vardhaman Choksi.
Ms. Rukhmini Bobde, CGSC along with
Mr. Amlaan Kumar, Mr. Jatin Dhamija &
Mr. Vinayak Aren, Advocates for the
Registrar of Trade Marks.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA

JUDGMENT

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 2 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05




TEJAS KARIA, J
1. By way of the present common Judgment, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM)
12/2023 (“ Appeal ”) and C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 98/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 194/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 264/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 269/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 333/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 406/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 47/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 135/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 152/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 197/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 200/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 254/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 259/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 552/2022 and
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 681/2022 (“ Rectification Petitions ”) are being
decided as the issues raised therein are identical.
2. The Appeal has been filed by Impressario Entertainment and
Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (“ Impressario ”) seeking rectification of the Mark
‘
’ registered under Application No. 2230483
in Class 43 in favour of Vardhaman Choksi, while the Rectification Petitions
have been filed by Vardhaman Choksi against the following registered
Marks of Impressario (“ Impressario’s Marks ”).

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 3 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 4 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 5 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 6 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



FACTUAL BACKGROUND:
3. On 20.10.2017, Impressario filed the rectification petition before the
Intellectual Property Appellate Board (“ IPAB ”), Mumbai bearing No.
ORA/5/2018/TM/MUM, for cancellation of the Mark
‘
’. On 04.12.2017, Impressario filed a suit
before this Court seeking a permanent injunction against the use of the Mark
‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ by Vardhaman Choksi. This Court vide order dated
06.12.2017 passed an ex-parte ad-interim injunction restraining Vardhaman
Choksi from opening a restaurant with the Marks ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ and
‘SOCIAL’.
4. Thereafter, Vardhaman Choksi filed the Rectification Petitions before
the IPAB, New Delhi, seeking rectification of the Impressario’s Marks from
the Register of Trade Marks. Vide order dated 14.05.2018, this Court
returned the plaint of Impressario in CS(COMM.) No. 826/2017 on the
ground of territorial jurisdiction and granted liberty to Impressario to file the
suit for injunction against the use of the Mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ in the
Bombay High Court.
5. In June 2018, Impressario filed a suit before the Bombay High Court
seeking an injunction against the use of the Mark ‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ by
Vardhaman Choksi. On 22.06.2018, Vardhaman Choksi gave an undertaking
before the Bombay High Court that he will give Impressario 3 weeks’ prior
notice in writing if he intends to open a restaurant under the Mark ‘SOCIAL
HOUSE’ or ‘SOCIAL’. No such undertaking has been provided by
Vardhaman Choksi to Impressario till date.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 7 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



6. After the abolition of the IPAB and upon promulgation of Tribunals
Reforms (Rationalization and Conditions of Service) Ordinance, 2021, the
Rectification Petitions got transferred to this Court. Vide Order dated
01.05.2023, the record of the rectification petition filed by Impressario
before IPAB, Mumbai bearing No. ORA/5/2018/TM/MUM got transferred
to this Court and thereafter, the rectification petition filed by Impressario,
bearing No. ORA/5/2018/TM/MUM, was registered as the Appeal.
7. After completion of arguments, judgment in the Appeal and in the
Rectification Petitions was reserved on 24.12.2025.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF IMPRESSARIO:
8. The learned Senior Counsel for Impressario made the following
submissions:
8.1 Impressario commenced business in the year 2001 and is
engaged in providing restaurant services, including but not
limited to conducting and managing restaurants and coffee
shops, operating restaurants and coffee shops, providing
expertise relating to provision of food and drink. Impressario
presently is running various well-known restaurants and coffee
shops including Smoke House Deli, Stone Water Grill, Salt
Water Cafe, Le Kebabiere, The Tasting Room, Prithvi Cafe, and
‘SOCIAL’ and its variants.
8.2 Impressario in the year 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 offering.
The Trade Mark ‘SOCIAL’ was adopted in respect of such
cafes. Since the business model of Impressario was to open

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 8 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



multiple ‘SOCIAL’ cafes in one city, they coined the unique
concept of prefixing and/or suffixing the Trade Mark ‘SOCIAL’
with the particular area of the city and / or any other interesting
prefix and / or suffix in which the cafe would be located and
coined Impressario’s Marks and various others to indicate to the
general public the area in which the cafe was located in each
city and would be nearest to them for a visit.
8.3 Combining work and play, the ‘SOCIAL’ cafes / restaurants of
Impressario are urban hangouts designed to take people offline
while still keeping them connected. Impressario’s ‘SOCIAL’
cafes / restaurants are a collaborative workspace, a hub for
artists and innovators. Even the interiors of the ‘SOCIAL’ cafes
and bars have been designed to give a very rugged and bare feel
to its customers with brick walls and bare bulbs hanging down
from the ceiling, with simple wooden and leather furniture.
Each ‘SOCIAL’ outlet operated by Impressario has a distinct
theme and the interiors are designed around that theme. The
theme itself has become exclusively identified to Impressario.
Impressario operates over 52 ‘SOCIAL’ restaurants in India and
has obtained registrations over various Trade Marks containing
‘SOCIAL’ in a standalone manner or as a prefix or suffix, the
details of which are as follows:

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 9 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 10 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05

8.4 Impressario’s annual revenue from restaurants under the Mark
‘SOCIAL’ for the Financial Year (“ FY ”) 2024-25 was
₹5,89,39,00,000 while the promotional expenses incurred by
Impressario during the FY 2024-25 was ₹29,19,00,000.
Impressario has also successfully obtained various favourable
orders from this Court recognizing its rights in Impressario’s
Marks.
8.5 Vardhaman Choksi applied for the registration of the Mark
‘
’ bearing Application No.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 11 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



2230483 in Class 43 on 08.11.2011 with a user date of
08.11.2011. The registration for the same was granted on
14.10.2015.
8.6 It is well settled that use of a Trade Mark has to be genuine use
and in the relevant class of goods and services in which the
mark is registered, which is absent in the present case.
Admittedly, Vardhaman Choksi does not have a restaurant
under the Mark ‘
’. Therefore, the
Mark ‘
’ is liable to be expunged
under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“ Act ”). It is an
admitted position that Vardhaman Choksi has never used the
Mark ‘
’ in respect of the services
for which it is registered, i.e., restaurant or restaurant related
services under Class 43. In the judgments of Russell Corp
Australia Pty Ltd. v. Shri Ashok Mahajan , 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 4796 and Kiranakart Technologies Private Limited v.
Mohammad Arshad & Anr. , 2025 SCC OnLine Del 1401, this
Court has held that it is the settled legal position that use has to
be genuine use in the relevant class of goods and services.
Unless the non-use is explained by way of special
circumstances in the trade, the mark would be liable to be
removed for non-use.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 12 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



8.7 Furthermore, admittedly Vardhaman Choksi applied for
registration of the Mark ‘
’ in
Class 43 for arranging and conducting of entertainment events
which comes under the ambit of Class 41 and not under Class
43 and even so, mere trading with respect to one category of
products in a class does not give Vardhaman Choksi the right to
claim monopoly over the entire Class of products as has been
held in the judgment of Vishnudas Kishandas v. Vazir Sultan
Tobbaco Co. Ltd., Hyedrabad & Anr. , AIR 1996 SC 2275. The
Madras High Court in the judgment of Financiare Batteur Sas
v. Kalai Arasu , Neutral Citation: 2024:MHC:4092, held that
mere anticipation of cancellation petition does not constitute
special circumstance in the trade as envisaged in Section 47(3)
of the Act. The Calcutta High Court in the judgment of
Akteibolaget Jonkoping Vulcan v. V.S.V. Palanichamy Nadar ,
1968 SCC OnLine CAL 48, held that exposition of special
circumstances in the trade as being the non use of the trade
mark emphasises the aspect that the non-use is due to external
forces and not due to voluntary act or omission on the part of
the trader. Special circumstances in the trade must be special
circumstances for all the trade in those particular goods.
8.8 Vardhaman Choksi has wrongly registered over 100
international brands in India, with no corresponding use of the
same. Vardhaman Choksi currently runs only a single restaurant
in Mumbai by the name ‘ESCOBAR’ which is also copied from

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 13 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



a famous restaurant in Malibu, USA. This Court in the
judgments of Volans Uptown LLC v. Mahendra Jeshabhai
Bambhaniya , 2024 SCC OnLine Del 881 and Osram GMBH &
Anr. vs. Tejmeet Singh Sethi & Anr., 2022 SCC OnLine Del
1744, has held that the practice of Trade Mark squatting is a
menace and needs to be curbed.
8.9 Existence of various Marks containing common elements to
those of the Impressario’s Marks will only help the case of
Vardhaman Choksi if he was able to show substantial use of
those Marks as has been held in Corn Products Refining Co. v.
Shangrila Food Products Ltd. , AIR 1960 SC 142. The Mark
‘SOCIAL’ is neither generic nor it is descriptive, it is
suggestive. In the judgments of T.N. Venugopal v. Ushodaya
Enterprises Limited , (2011) 4 SCC 85 and Bata India Limited
v. Chawla Boot House , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8147, it has
been held that the line between suggestive marks and
descriptive marks is very thin and the Imagination Test has been
laid down to determine as to whether a Mark is descriptive or
suggestive.
8.10 In view of the above, the Appeal deserves to be allowed and the
Mark ‘
’ is liable to be removed
from the Register of Trade Marks and the Rectification
Petitions deserve to be dismissed.



C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 14 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF VARDHAMAN CHOKSI
9. The learned Counsel for Vardhaman Choksi made the following
submissions:
9.1 The Mark ‘SOCIAL’ is generic and is commonly used. The
Cambridge dictionary defines the word itself as an adjective,
“relating to activities in which you meet and spend time with
other people and that happens during the time you are not
working.” With the advent of the Social Media age, the word
‘SOCIAL’ has become a part of common parlance and
everyday language. It has also been widely adopted in
conjunction with words and logos as Trade Marks by several
parties for diversified goods and services in India and abroad. A
bare search on the Trade Mark registry website indicates how
commonly the word has been adopted and that several entities
have acquired rights in their Trade Marks through long use and
registration. This Court in the judgment of Delhivery Private
Limited v. Treasure Vase Ventures Private Limited , 278
(2021) DLT 485, held that no party can be allowed to have
exclusive right to use and register a generic word.
9.2 Impressario has applied and acquired Trade Mark registration
for the Mark ‘SOCIAL’, either in a standalone manner or as a
prefix or a suffix, under various classes which is clear evidence
of intent that Impressario is trying to restrain any third party
from using the English word ‘SOCIAL’ jointly, severally or in
any manner whatsoever with respect to restaurant and bar
services and such an attempt is to create a monopoly over the

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 15 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



Mark ‘SOCIAL’ in relation to the hospitality industry that
would gravely disadvantage and hamper the rights of other
players in the market. In the judgment of Stokley Van Camp,
Inc v. Heinz India Private Limited , 2010 SCC OnLine Del
2153, this Court held that the trade marks which are formed
from commonly used words of the current language cannot be
granted exclusive rights. This judgment was challenged before
the Division Bench of this Court in Stokley Van Camp, Inc v.
Heinz India Private Limited , FAO(OS) No. 488/2010 wherein
the Division Bench upheld the judgment and held that
proprietor of a registered trade mark cannot sue for
infringement if the use of the Trade Mark by the defendant falls
within the exceptions carved out in Sections 30 and 35 of the
Act. Stokley filed a SLP against the decisions of the Single
Judge and the Division Bench, being SLP (C) No. 8016/2011,
the SLP was dismissed, however, the question of law was left
open.
9.3 Vardhaman Choksi applied for the registration of the Trade
Mark ‘
’ on 08.11.2011, vide
Application No. 2230483, under Class 43. Vardhaman Choksi
relies on the invoices issued since 20.11.2011 bearing the Trade
Mark ‘
’ to establish its prior use
of the Trade Mark ‘
’. In Tata
Sons Ltd. v. Manoj Dodia & Ors., CS (OS) No. 264/2008 , this

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 16 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



Court vide judgment dated 28.03.2011 has held that when a
trade mark is used on an invoice issued for selling the goods, it
does indicate connection between the goods being sold under
the invoice and the trade mark which the invoice bears, and
therefore, amounts to use of the mark in relation to the goods,
which are sold under that invoice. In 2014, there was a massive
fire at the premises of Escobar, the restaurant of Vardhaman
Choksi, which was reported extensively in the media. Because
of the said fire, a lot of material and evidence, qua the use of the
Mark ‘
’, could not be retrieved
by Vardhaman Choksi.
9.4 Impressario has admittedly opened its first outlet under the
Mark ‘SOCIAL’ in the year 2014, which is after 3 years of the
continuous and uninterrupted usage of the Mark
‘
’ by Vardhaman Choksi.
Vardhaman Choksi launched and owns Asia’s largest bar since
2009 named Escobar in Mumbai, which boasts a bar longer
than 77 feet and is one of the major attractions in Mumbai,
Maharashtra and has acquired immense popularity among the
celebrities and general public. The Mark
‘
’ has been extensively used for
hosting events at night in Escobar and has come to be
exclusively associated with the tailored nights attended by
various celebrities and covered by media channels for publicity.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 17 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



‘SOCIAL HOUSE’ events garnered enthusiasm among the
partygoers and socialites in a short span of time. As a result, the
profits of ‘ESCOBAR’ lounge rose substantially from FY
2011-2012 onwards. The right of Vardhaman Choksi as a prior
user will override those of the subsequent user, even though it
has been accorded registration of its Trade Mark. The rights of
the proprietor who was first to the market have been recognised
in the judgments in Neon Laboratories v. Medical
Technologies , (2016) 2 SCC 672, Victoria Foods Pvt. Ltd. v.
Rajdhani Masala Co. & Ors. , CS (Comm) 108/2021 judgment
dated 01.09.2021, The Timken Company v. Timken Services
Pvt. Ltd. , CS (OS) No. 3/2010 judgment dated 30.05.2013,
Cadila Healthcare Limited v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. ,
AIR 2001 SC 1952 and S. Syed Mohideen vs. P. Sulochana
Bai , AIR 2016 SCC 683.
9.5 The present Appeal is a quintessential example of how
Vardhaman Choksi, sought to be stifled under the garb of
intellectual property by Impressario. Impressario has gone to
the length of even calling Vardhaman Choksi, a ‘Rank Trade
Mark Squatter’ and submitting a list of all the Trade Marks that
have been applied by Vardhaman Choksi, without an iota of
relevance to the case. Impressario itself has registered known
international brands like ‘JAGERBOMB’, ‘LA VA LA VA’,
‘SANGRIA’, amongst many others. The First Mark applied by
Impressario with the word ‘SOCIAL’ was ‘SOCIAL MOCHA’.
In fact, the Impressario’s adoption of the mark ‘MOCHA’ itself

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 18 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



is in bad faith as the brand is prior owned by McDonalds and
has been challenged vehemently by the same. Impressario is
deliberately trying to mislead this Court by diverting the
attention from Vardhaman Choksi’s prior use and registration
by mudslinging Vardhaman Choksi and repeatedly alleging
Trade Mark squatting which is not true and is also irrelevant to
the issue in the Appeal and the Rectification Proceedings.
9.6 The idea of prefixing and / or suffixing the Trade Mark
‘SOCIAL’ with particular area of the city and / or any other
interesting suffix and / or prefix in which the café would be
located is copied from Mr. Jason Atherton, who first
implemented and launched ‘Pollen Street Social’ and has
obtained a Trade Mark registration for the same and it has been
running since the year 2010, much before Impressario started its
restaurant business with the suffix ‘SOCIAL’ and the same idea
is blatantly copied by Impressario and falsely implicating that
the idea is unique and coined by Impressario.
9.7 Impressario has sought to rectify the Register of Trade Marks
and to remove Vardhaman Choksi’s Mark
‘
’ for non-use. Vardhaman
Choksi used the Mark ‘
’
continuously for seven years, from 2011 to 2018, and only
ceased using it due to the litigation initiated by the Petitioner
and orders passed thereunder. The Supreme Court in Hardie
Trading (supra) has held that removal for non-use shall only be

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 19 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



in cases where there is a clear intention to abandon the trade
mark. At no point did Vardhaman Choksi abandon the Mark
‘
’, in fact, Vardhaman Choksi
has always intended to continue using it. This is clearly
demonstrated by the fact that Vardhaman Choksi utilised the
Mark ‘
’ for a significant duration of
seven years and has been actively engaged in litigation since
2018 to protect its rights over the mark. The importance of the
Mark ‘
’ to Vardhaman Choksi is
further evidenced by his persistent efforts to secure it, as seen
from the filing of the Rectification Petitions against Impressario
and the substantial time and money invested in these legal
proceedings. Vardhaman Choksi’s actions unequivocally
illustrate the value placed on the Mark
‘
’ and the intent to maintain its
use and protection.
9.8 Actions taken pursuant to ongoing litigation and court orders
cannot be construed as abandonment of the Mark
‘
’ or as having no intention to
use it in the future. The principle of safe distance applies to
parties in ongoing litigation and / or those injuncted by the
Courts and thus, Vardhaman Choksi has adhered to this
principle in its conduct. Vardhaman Choksi remains committed

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 20 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



to protecting its rights over the Mark
‘
’ and intends to resume its use
once the legal proceedings are resolved.
9.9 Section 47(3) of the Act carves out an exception to non-use.
The circumstances of the present case fall under the category of
special circumstances in the trade as contemplated under
Section 47(3) of the Act. As a result, the standard time period of
5 years and 3 months for non-use of the Mark
‘
’ has not expired, considering the
impact of the pandemic and the associated delays. Thus,
Vardhaman Choksi’s right to the Mark
‘
’ remains intact, and the period
of non-use should not be held against Vardhaman Choksi
during these unprecedented times as has been held in Hardie
Trading (supra) and Ace Technologies Corp and Ors v.
Communication Components Antenna Inc. , 2023 SCC OnLine
Del 2082.

SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE
MARKS:
10. The learned Counsel for the Registrar of Trade Marks submitted that
the Registrar of Trade Marks is a formal party and will abide by any Order
passed by this Court.



C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 21 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS:
11. The learned Senior Counsel for Impressario submitted that
Impressario adopted the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ in the year 2012 and has since
expanded its chain of restaurants under the Impressario’s Marks pan India.
In order to protect its proprietary rights, Impressario has obtained Trade
Mark registrations for various Marks with the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ either in a
standalone manner or as a prefix or as a suffix, some of which are the
Impressario’s Marks which have been challenged in the Rectification
Petitions and even though Impressario is the subsequent adopter, it is still
the only bona fide user. The Impressario’s Marks which have been
challenged in the Rectification Petitions are not generic Marks but are rather
Suggestive. The existence of various Marks comprising of common
elements of Impressario’s Marks will only help the case of Vardhaman
Choksi if he is able to show substantial use of the same.
12. The learned Senior Counsel for Impressario further submitted that the
Mark ‘
’ has never been used by Vardhaman
Choksi with respect to the goods and service it was registered for and
therefore, is liable to be cancelled and removed from the Register of Trade
Marks under Section 47 of the Act. No special circumstances in the trade as
envisaged under Section 47(3) of the Act have been demonstrated by
Vardhaman Choksi for non use of the Mark ‘
’.
Further, Vardhaman Choksi is a Trade Mark squatter who routinely adopts
Well-Known Trade Marks, without bona fide intent and uses it for obtaining
unfair advantage.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 22 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



13. Per contra , the learned Counsel for Vardhaman Choksi submitted that
‘SOCIAL’ is a generic term and Impressario cannot have the monopoly to
use the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ with respect to restaurant services. The Mark
‘SOCIAL’ is common to trade and there are a lot of other companies using
the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ for various goods and services. Vardhaman Choksi is
also the prior user and received prior registration of the Mark
‘
’ and has been using the same for hosting
events at his club ‘ESCOBAR’ in Mumbai and has produced bills using the
Mark ‘
’ as evidence of use.
14. It was further submitted by the learned Counsel on behalf of
Vardhaman Choksi that Vardhaman Choksi is not a squatter of Trade Marks
as has been alleged by Impressario, instead, it is Impressario who has copied
the idea of using the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ in a standalone manner or as a prefix
or suffix, from various International brands. Further, Vardhaman Choksi was
using the Mark ‘
’ continuously from 2011 to
2018, and only stopped using it considering the ongoing litigations between
Impressario and Vardhaman Choksi, thus, the present case falls in the
category of special circumstances in the trade and therefore the Mark
‘
’ falls within the exception of non-use laid
down under Section 47(3) of the Act.
15. From the averments made in the Appeal and the Rectification
Petitions and the evidence on record, Impressario has been able to prove that
Impressario is the registered proprietor of Impressario’s Marks. Due to its

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 23 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



long and extensive use, Impressario has also been able to demonstrate and
prove the goodwill and reputation in respect of Impressario’s Marks.
16. Impressario has been using the Impressario’s Marks continuously and
uninterruptedly at least since the year 2014. Impressario has been expanding
its foothold in the hospitality industry. Impressario has earned considerable
goodwill and reputation in India which is evident from the enormous
revenue earned by Impressario since FY 2014-15. The total turnover for
Impressario from dealing under goods and services under the Impressario’s
Marks in FY 2024-25 was ₹5,89,39,00,000/-. Impressario has also spent a
large amount of money as promotional expenditure between the FY 2014-15
and 2024-25, the promotion expenditure of Impressario in the FY 2024-25
was ₹29,19,00,000/- and has led to the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ becoming
synonymous with Impressario alone.
17. In the Imagination Test, it must be determined that when a consumer
comes across the trade mark, any imagination or mental leap is required to
form an association between the mark and the product. When some level of
imagination or mental leap is required then the mark is suggestive. This
Court in the judgment of Teleecare Network India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asus
Technology Pvt. Ltd. , 2019 SCC OnLine Del 8739, held that the category of
suggestive marks refers to those marks which are neither exactly descriptive
on the one hand, nor truly fanciful on the other. A term is suggestive if it
requires imagination, thought and perception to reach a conclusion as to the
nature of the goods, further a Mark maybe generic qua certain businesses,
however, but not across the board for all businesses or trades or industries.
The Mark ‘SOCIAL’ with respect to the hospitality industry has become
associated with Impressario and is not generic for the hospitality industry.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 24 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



18. The use of the Mark ‘SOCIAL’ with respect to hospitality services is
not generic and therefore, the judgment in the case of Delhivery Private
Limited (supra) will not help the case of Vardhaman Choksi. Existence of
various Marks containing elements common to those of the Impressario’s
Marks will only help the case of Vardhaman Choksi if he was able to show
substantial use of those Marks as has been held in Corn Products (supra).
19. A perusal of Section 47 of the Act would reveal that a registered
Trade Mark is liable to be taken off the Register of Trade Marks, if the
registered Mark is not used for a period of five years and three months prior
to the date of filing of the Petition. This has been laid down in Section
47(1)(b) of the Act.
20. Vardhaman Choksi has never used its registered Mark
‘
’ with respect to the services for which it
was registered in Class 43, instead, Vardhaman Choksi has admitted in his
pleadings that the Mark ‘
’ was used for
certain events at night at its restaurant named ‘ESCOBAR’. Arranging and
conducting of entertainment events comes under the ambit of Class 41 and
not under Class 43. It is settled law that to establish use of a Mark, the use of
the Mark must be with respect to the goods and services in respect of which
it was registered. This view has been consistently upheld in the judgments of
Russell Corp (supra) and Kiranakart Technologies (supra).
21. Impressario has placed on record the documents to prove the
continuous use of Impressario’s Mark with respect to the goods and services
for which it was registered. The adoption of the Impressario’s Mark has
been proved to be bona fide . Vardhaman Choksi is admittedly the prior

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 25 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



registrant of the Mark ‘
’, however, he has not
been able to show any genuine use of the Mark
‘
’ with respect to the services it had obtained
the registration.
22. The exception of special circumstances in the trade as has been carved
out in Section 47(3) of the Act contemplates a situation where a registered
proprietor can defend its rights over a Trade Mark despite non-use of the
Trade Mark. For the exception under Section 47(3) to be applicable, the
registered proprietor must show that special circumstances in the trade did
not allow him to use the trade mark with respect to the goods or services for
which it was registered. The exception of special circumstances in the trade
include either a statutory or regulatory bar against the use of the registered
Mark and not to any intention to abandon or not to use the trade mark in
relation to the goods or services to which the application relates. As has
been in the judgment of Akteibolaget Jonkoping (supra) that special
circumstances in the trade include situations where non-use of a registered
mark is due to external forces and not due to voluntary act or omission on
the part of the trader. Special circumstances in the trade must be special
circumstances for all the goods in those particular goods. Special
circumstances in the trade shall be some external force, distinct from
voluntary acts of an individual.
23. Vardhaman Choksi has pleaded that he has stopped using the Mark
‘
’ as a precautionary measure considering the
multiple litigations between Impressario and him and the ongoing litigations

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 26 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



between the Parties is the special circumstance due to which he is not using
the Mark ‘
’ but he does not have the intention
of abandoning the Mark ‘
’ and has constantly
used the Mark ‘
’ between 2011 and 2018. It
has been held in the judgment of Financiare Batteur (supra) that imminent
threat of cancellation of Mark upon its registration is not a special
circumstance in the trade under Section 47(3) of the Act.
24. In the context of non-use, it is the settled legal position that use must
be genuine use in the relevant class of goods and services. Unless the
non-use is explained by way of special circumstances in the trade, the Mark
would be liable to be removed for non-use. In the present case, no special
circumstances have been cited and, in these facts, the Mark
‘
’ is liable to be removed on the ground of
non-use itself. Under Section 57 of the Act, if any Trade Mark is wrongly
remaining on the Register of Trade Marks, the same would be liable to be
rectified. In the present case, it has been observed that there is no use of the
Mark ‘
’ with respect to the relevant services
it was registered for, and Vardhaman Choksi has been unable to substantiate
special circumstances in the trade for non-use thereof and therefore, the
Mark ‘
’ is wrongly remaining on the register
of Trade Marks and is liable to be cancelled.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 27 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



25. Facts in the present case suggest a pattern of Trade Mark squatting by
Vardhaman Choksi. As no genuine use of the Mark
‘
’ with respect to the services for which it
was registered has been demonstrated by Vardhaman Choksi. Impressario
has produced a list of over a hundred internationally recognised Trade
Marks that Vardhaman Choksi has registered in India, with no corresponding
use of the same. The evidence points towards Vardhaman Choksi being a
squatter of Trade Marks. Vardhaman Choksi’s approach of applying for
Marks identical to globally renowned Marks reflects a deliberate practice of
Trade Mark squatting. This manipulative tactic entails adopting, seeking
registration of, or even securing registration for Trade Marks linked with
established brands, with the calculated intent of later selling these rights at a
premium to the genuine Trade Mark proprietors. Such conduct undermines
the sanctity of the Trade Mark Register and highlights the necessity to
uphold and protect the rights of bona fide proprietors. Accordingly, the
Mark ‘
’ is liable to be rectified from the
Register of Trade Marks.
CONCLUSION
26. In view of the above analysis, it is directed that:
i. The Appeal C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 is allowed and the
Registrar of Trade Marks is directed to remove the Impugned Trade
Mark, ‘
’ registered under Trade Mark
Application No. 2230483, in Class 43, from the Register of Trade
Marks. The Appeal and the pending Application stand disposed of.

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 28 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05



ii. The Rectification Petitions being C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 72/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 93/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 96/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 98/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 194/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 212/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 264/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 269/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 283/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 333/2021, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 406/2021,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 47/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 135/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 150/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 152/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 197/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 200/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 254/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 259/2022,
C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 284/2022, C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 552/2022
and C.O.(COMM.IPD-TM) 681/2022 are dismissed.
27. A copy of the Judgment is directed to be sent to the Trade Mark
Registry at e-mail: llc-ipo@gov.in for necessary compliance.

TEJAS KARIA, J

APRIL 10, 2026
‘AK’

C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 12/2023 & Connected Matters Page 29 of 29

Signature Not Verified
Signed By:SWATI
MAYEE SAHU
Signing Date:11.04.2026
21:29:05