The Delhi High Court IP dispute between hospitality brands “SOCIAL HOUSE” and “SOCIAL” has moved toward mediation while the Court continues to hear an appeal over trademark rights. The Division Bench referred the parties to mediation and simultaneously issued notice on an appeal challenging the cancellation of the “SOCIAL HOUSE” trademark registration. The case raises important questions about prior use, trademark registration, and non-use under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Background
A Division Bench of Justice V. Kameswar Rao and Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora heard the appeal filed by Vardhaman Choksi. He challenged the Single Judge’s judgment dated April 10, 2026, which removed the “SOCIAL HOUSE” trademark from the Register of Trade Marks. The judgment also dismissed Choksi’s rectification petitions against several “SOCIAL” trademark registrations owned by Impresario Entertainment and Hospitality Pvt. Ltd.
Choksi claims that he adopted the “SOCIAL HOUSE” mark in 2011. He states that he used the mark commercially for events hosted at his ESCOBAR establishment in Mumbai. According to him, Impresario adopted the “SOCIAL” mark only after his prior use.
Impresario, on the other hand, has expanded the “SOCIAL” brand into one of India’s best-known hospitality chains. The dispute therefore centres on competing claims of prior adoption and commercial use.
Grounds of Appeal
Choksi argues that the Single Judge failed to properly evaluate the evidence of prior adoption and genuine commercial use. He also contends that the Court incorrectly upheld findings of non-use under Section 47 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
According to the appellant, he initiated the rectification proceedings within the statutory five-year grace period. Therefore, the non-use provisions should not have applied in the manner adopted by the Single Judge.
Section 47 and the Five-Year Grace Period
Section 47(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act protects a registered trademark from cancellation on grounds of non-use during the first five years after registration.
Delhi High Court decisions consistently hold that a party seeking cancellation must prove continuous non-use for at least five years before filing the rectification application. Even limited but genuine commercial use during that period can defeat a cancellation claim.
Courts have also clarified that trademark owners cannot merely register a mark without putting it to commercial use. At the same time, they have held that parties cannot seek cancellation before the statutory grace period expires.
Choksi relies on this legal framework. He argues that the Single Judge failed to properly consider whether the rectification proceedings were filed prematurely.
Proceedings Before the Division Bench
Senior Advocate J. Sai Deepak, appearing for Choksi, informed the Bench that his client was willing to explore an amicable settlement.
Senior Advocate C.M. Lall, representing Impresario, expressed no objection to mediation. The Division Bench accepted the proposal and referred both parties to the Delhi High Court Mediation and Conciliation Centre.
The Court directed the parties to appear before the Mediation Centre on July 17, 2026. It also allowed both sides to submit written arguments before the next hearing. The appeal will come up again on August 21, 2026.
Significance
This Delhi High Court IP dispute reflects the growing preference of intellectual property benches to encourage negotiated settlements in trademark conflicts. Mediation may allow the parties to reach a coexistence agreement, adopt distinct branding strategies, or negotiate licensing arrangements instead of continuing lengthy litigation.
If mediation does not succeed, the Division Bench will decide several important legal issues. These include the correct interpretation of the five-year grace period under Section 47, the standard for proving prior adoption and bona fide use, and the evidentiary value of commercial use at a single establishment compared with use through a nationwide chain. The outcome could influence future trademark disputes in India’s hospitality sector.
