TRADEMARK
‘SOCIAL’ BECOMES A WELL-KNOWN TRADEMARK
Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff), the owners of the famous “Social” chain of restaurants, filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against The Shake Social (Defendant) for infringement of its registered trademark “SOCIAL”. The Plaintiff claimed that it has been using the trademark “SOCIAL” since 2012 and has an extensive and widespread presence in all over country. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant has been operating its restaurant/café under the mark “THE SHAKE SOCIAL” and has been promoting it through third-party websites such as Zomato and Swiggy. It further contended that such use is likely to cause confusion and deception in the minds of consumers and had dishonestly adopted the mark to free-ride upon the goodwill of the Plaintiff.
The Delhi HC held that the Plaintiff had successfully demonstrated the goodwill and reputation of its mark through long and extensive use and accordingly, acceded that it was a clear case of trademark infringement and passing off., Consequently, the Court ordered the Defendant to cease and desist from any further unauthorised use of the impugned mark. Importantly, the Court, recognised the notable commercial presence, prolonged usage, and distinctiveness of the trademark “SOCIAL”, and therefore accorded it the status of a well-known trademark under Section 2(1) (zg) of the Trade Marks Act.
1.Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. The Shake Social, CS(COMM) 121/2025
TRADEMARK
NO EXCLUIVITY OVER “TIGER” AND “BRAND”
Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog (Plaintiff), filed a trademark infringement suit before the Delhi HC against M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. (Defendant) alleging passing off and infringement of his mark ‘TIGER GOLD BRAND’. The Plaintiff, a manufacturer of agricultural goods, claimed that the Defendant was using a deceptively similar mark “TIGER PREMIUM BRAND” along with a photo of a Tiger in a frame, similar to that of the Plaintiff’s mark, and in the same trade channels. The Plaintiff further alleged that the marks were phonetically and visually similar, which was sufficient to confuse farmers of average intelligence, and that the Defendant was free riding on his established goodwill and reputation among farmers and distributors in the country. The Defendant argued that the words ‘TIGER’ and ‘BRAND’ are generic and common to the trade, and cannot be monopolized by a single entity. Further, Defendant relied on SC precedents, contending that composite marks must be compared as a whole.
The Delhi HC refused to grant interim relief and held that no exclusive rights could be claimed over the words “Tiger” or “brand” as both are generic and common to the trade. Applying the anti-dissection rule, the court held that the marks must be considered as a whole and not in parts. The Court further noted that the Plaintiff’s mark had not acquired secondary meaning in the market and, therefore, the Plaintiff could not claim exclusivity.
1. Mayank Jain, Proprietor of Mahaveer Udyog v. M/S Atulya Discs Pvt. Ltd. & Ors., CS(COMM) 412/2025)
TRADEMARK
TM RECTIFICATION JURISDICTION IS REGISTRY-SPECIFIC
T.T. Salads and Grill LLP (Petitioner) filed a Special Jurisdiction case before the Kerala HC against The Secretary, Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade & Others (Respondent) seeking rectification of the Trademark certificate granted by the Registrar of Trade Mark, Mumbai. The Petitioner argued that under Section 57 of the Trade Marks Act, any aggrieved person may approach the High Court or the Registrar for cancellation or variation of a trademark registration and that the remedy of rectification should be available before any High Court where the trademark has a dynamic effect. The Respondents relied on the judgment in PAS Agro Foods v. KRBL Limited [2025 KHC 1126], which held that a rectification petition under Section 57 is maintainable only before the High Court having appellate jurisdiction over the Trade Marks Registry where the trademark is registered. Accordingly, it was argued that the petition was not maintainable before the Kerala High Court since the trademark was registered in Mumbai.
The Kerala HC held that rectification jurisdiction is neither general nor territorial in nature but registry-specific. It observed that, under Rules 4 and 5 of the Trade Marks Rules, the appropriate office of the Trade Marks Registry is determined based on the registered proprietor’s principal place of business, and that the Rules explicitly state that jurisdiction is not altered by any subsequent change of address. The Court further ruled that under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, the use of the word “the” indicates Parliament’s intention to confer jurisdiction on a particular High Court, and not on all High Courts generally. Consequently, the Special Jurisdiction Case was dismissed.
1. T.T. Salads and Grill LLP v. The Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade, SP. JC NO. 1 OF 2025; 2025: KER:91080
TRADEMARK
IHCL REGISTERS THE “TAJ” SOUND MARK
Indian Hotels Company Limited (IHCL) has secured registration for the “Taj” sonic mark, becoming the first hospitality company in India to obtain trademark protection for a sound. The mark has been registered under Class 9 for software and mobile applications relating to hotel reservations and accommodation management; Class 35 for advertising, marketing of hotel services, and management of customer loyalty programs; and Class 42 for services relating to temporary accommodation and the provision of food and beverages. This registration confers statutory protection to the distinctive sound used by Taj Hotels as a brand identifier within the hospitality sector, recognizing the sound as a unique intellectual property of the brand. The Executive Vice President and General Counsel of IHCL emphasized the company’s forward-looking approach to intellectual property protection, like securing rights over the three-dimensional shape of the Taj Hotel, Mumbai, and a broader shift towards experience-based branding beyond conventional physical spaces or visual elements.
COPYRIGHT
PERSONALITY RIGHTS AND FREE SPEECH
T. Rangaraj (Applicant) filed an interim application before the Madras HC against Ms. Joy Crizildaa & Anr. (Respondents), seeking to restrain her from publishing and circulating posts or interviews allegedly defaming his personality rights. The Applicant, a famous chef, actor and CEO of of Madhampatty Thangavelu Hospitality Pvt Ltd, a catering film in Tamil Nadu, alleged that the Respondent had first contacted him for work and that subsequently, she began spreading rumours about him through interviews and Instagram posts about their alleged marriage and pregnancy. This resulted in irreparable injury to his personal reputation as well as disparaged his entire family. The Respondent, countered that the Applicant had deceived her regarding his marital status, forced her to undergo abortions, and later physically abused her to compel further abortions. She further alleged that the Applicant had filed the present plea to evade her complaint before the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women. In support of her claims, the Respondent produced intimate photographs, a police complaint filed against the Applicant, and the findings of the Tamil Nadu State Commission for Women. The Madras HC dismissed the application and held that an order restricting the Respondent’s fundamental right to freedom of speech and expression cannot be passed without first establishing commercial exploitation of personality rights. The Court further observed, that based on the evidence submitted, a physical relationship existed between the parties and that the Respondent had also suffered reputational damage. The Court accepted the documents produced by the Respondent and noted that the Applicant failed to submit any evidentiary material to substantiate his claims. Hence, the Court rejected the application for interim relief.
1.T Rangaraj v. Ms Joy Crizildaa & Anr, O.A. No.948 of 2025
COPYRIGHT
MEITY ORDERS X TO TAKEDOWN OBSCENE GROK CONTENT
The Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY) directed X (formerly Twitter) platform to remove the vulgar, obscene, and unlawful content generated through X’s artificial intelligence chatbot “Grok” within 72 hours and to take appropriate action against offending users. The Ministry also instructed X to conduct a comprehensive technical, procedural, and governance-level review of Grok AI, including scrutiny of prompt processing, output generation, image handling, and safety guidelines.
X acknowledged its lapses in its content-moderation practices and in compliance with MeitY’s directions, blocked approximately 3,500 pieces of content and deleted around 600 accounts for violating platform guidelines. X stated that it has complied with Indian law and assured authorities that going forward, it will not allow obscene imagery on the platform. The company further announced that it is introducing additional guardrails for Grok, including stricter image-generation filters and enhanced safeguards to prevent the misuse of user images.
However, the Ministry observed that Grok continued to generate sexually explicit content in response to user prompts. MeitY warned that any failure to comply with due diligence obligations under the Information Technology Act, 2000, and the Information Technology (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, would result in X losing the “safe harbour” protection available under Section 79 of the IT Act.
PATENT
ANTI-SUIT RELIEF IN INTERNATIONAL PATENT LITIGATION
BMW (Plaintiff) filed an action in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas against Onesta IP, LLC (Defendant), seeking declaratory relief and an anti-suit injunction. The Plaintiff challenged patent infringement proceedings initiated by the Defendant in Germany, targeting Plaintiff’s main Munich plant, arguing that the foreign actions interfered with the U.S. court’s jurisdiction over disputes concerning U.S. patent rights. The Plaintiff contended that, under established U.S. anti-suit principles, emergency equitable relief is warranted to prevent irreparable harm and preserve the court’s ability to adjudicate its patents. The Plaintiff sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO), followed by preliminary and permanent anti-suit injunctions, to restrain the Defendant from pursuing or enforcing the German proceedings. The Court granted the Plaintiff’s request for a TRO, and temporarily restraining the Defendant from continuing the German actions.
The case highlights the strategic importance of cross-border patent enforcement, emphasizing that U.S. courts may intervene early in foreign litigation to protect domestic patent rights. It reinforces the need for careful assessment of timing, jurisdictional overlap, and the risk of injunctive escalation in international patent disputes.
