The SOCIAL case and the expanding boundaries of Trademark protection

Drafting Credit: Sidratul Muntaha, Research Associate

Image credits: via Freepik

Being ‘social’ usually means to connect and unite individuals. However, on this occasion, it took two businesses to court. What followed was not just a trademark dispute but an important milestone in the field of brand protection in India.

On January 9, 2026, Justice Tejas Karia delivered a judgement in Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. M/s The Shake Social, officially declaring the marks ‘SOCIAL’ and ‘S(#)CIAL’ as well-known marks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.¹ This is not only about one of the popular restaurant/pub chains in the country; this is about how this word has been transformed from being just another word in the dictionary to being one of the most protected brand icons in the country. Having achieved this status, SOCIAL has now become part of an exclusive group of Indian brands such as Wipro, Amul, and Taj that have been granted ‘cross-class’ protection for the brand name that allows it to remain protected even in other industries and sectors that are not related to its own.

The plaintiff is a company by the name Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., which runs a chain of restaurants and bars under the brand name ‘SOCIAL’ which is being used by the company since 2014 in various cities in India.² The brand developed considerable goodwill due to the prolonged use of the mark ‘SOCIAL’ and they also adopted a stylized form of the mark ‘S(#)CIAL’ that is a registered trademark. To substantiate its prestigious “well known” status, Impresario revealed factual evidence of its market dominance. The brand had grown to have more than 50 outlets across the country and had a huge presence on the internet through its ‘socialoffline’ website and millions of followers on social media. The financials of the plaintiff also spoke of its fame in the market. They had a turnover of ₹4,75,17,86,921 in the 2023-24 fiscal year and spent around ₹29,93,18,789 on promotions.³ Based on these evidences presented by the plaintiff, the court observed that the word ‘SOCIAL’ has acquired a “secondary meaning,” which implied that it was uniquely identifiable with the plaintiff in the minds of the Indian public.⁴

The dispute between the parties began in August 2022 when the plaintiff discovered that the defendant, M/s The Shake Social was running outlets in places called Valsad and Navsari in the state of Gujarat under the brand name ‘THE SHAKE SOCIAL’. The defendant was selling beverages and desserts through physical stores as well as online platforms like food delivery apps and social media. The plaintiff sent a cease and desist notice asking the defendant to stop using the name, but it was ignored. After this, the plaintiff filed a case in the Delhi High Court seeking orders to stop the infringement, passing off, and dilution. Impresario stated that the defendant’s decision to use the word ‘Social’ was dishonest and was an attempt to take advantage of their goodwill.⁵ The services offered by the defendant’s business were similar and targeted similar customers, which could easily lead people into confusion and to think that their businesses are related.

Despite the receipt of cease and desist letters, along with Court summons, the defendant failed to turn up in Court or file a written statement. The Court decided the case ex parte, and acknowledged that Impresario owns the “SOCIAL” brand and that it has built strong goodwill and reputation. It also ruled that using the name “The Shake Social” illegally copied Impresario’s brand and could mislead customers into thinking both businesses were connected. Most importantly, the Court declared “SOCIAL” and its stylized version “S(#)CIAL” as well-known trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.⁶

This judgment demonstrates the extent of protection that courts are now ready to offer to famous brands, even over common words. However, there are concerns about the expansion in the definition of well-known trademarks in India. Awarding the status of a well-known trademark to a common word demonstrates a new trend of high brand exclusivity, which ultimately leads to favouring established businesses over new businesses. Significantly, the case was heard ex parte. There are concerns about whether the ‘well-known’ status was subject to adequate adversarial scrutiny.

While such protection is obviously necessary in cases of clear imitation, there is a concern regarding the scope of such measures and their effects on restricting space in terms of commerce and competition. Hence, this particular case could be viewed as a success in enforcing trademarks as well as a caution, with emphasis on the need to achieve a delicate balance between reputation and free market forces. As India’s well-known trademark jurisprudence continues to evolve, the challenge will lie in ensuring that legal protection does not quietly transform into an arbitrary legal monopoly.

1. Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. v. The Shake Social, 2026 SCC OnLine Del 108. ↩︎
2. Avni Arya, SOCIAL Pub Declared As A Well-Known Mark By Delhi HC; ‘The Shake Social’ Stopped From Using Similar Name, Times Now (11 Jan, 2026, 12:00 IST) https://www.timesnownews.com/delhi/social-pub-declared-as-a-well-known-mark-by-delhi-hc-the-shake-social-stopped-from-using-similar-name-article-153429357. ↩︎
3. Id. ↩︎
4. Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 2, cl. 1 (zg), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India). ↩︎
5. Supra note 1. ↩︎
6. Prarthna Gupta, Delhi High Court declares ‘SOCIAL’ a well-known trade mark, SCC Online (12 Jan, 2026) https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/01/12/del-hc-declared-social-a-well-known-trade-mark/. ↩︎