Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief in ‘HOM’ Restaurant Trademark Dispute

Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief in ‘HOM’ Restaurant Trademark Dispute

Introduction

The Bombay High Court has refused interim relief to a Mumbai-based Chinese cuisine restaurant, House of Mandarin, in a trademark infringement and passing off dispute concerning the acronym “HOM.” The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish that “HOM” had acquired independent goodwill or public recognition capable of causing consumer confusion.

Factual Background

House of Mandarin stated that it adopted the mark “House of Mandarin” in 2016 and commenced restaurant operations in 2017. It claimed that over time, the restaurant came to be popularly referred to as “HOM” by customers, the media, and the public. The plaintiff further asserted that it operated outlets branded as “HOM” and “HOM House of Mandarin” in Bandra and Powai, and had applied for trademark registration of “HOM” and related marks.

The rival defendant, another Mumbai-based restaurant, adopted the mark “HOM” for its premium dining establishment launched in October 2025. The defendant asserted that the mark was derived from the Sanskrit word “HOM”, associated with fire rituals, reflecting its concept of open-fire cooking.

Procedural Background

House of Mandarin instituted a commercial intellectual property suit before the Bombay High Court seeking interim injunction against the defendants for trademark infringement and passing off. The application came up before Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh, who passed an order dated December 19, 2025, dismissing the request for interim relief.

Issues

1. Whether House of Mandarin had enforceable trademark rights in the acronym “HOM.”

2. Whether goodwill in the registered mark “House of Mandarin” could extend to its abbreviation.

3. Whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of infringement or passing off.

4. Whether there was a likelihood of consumer confusion between the rival restaurants.

Contentions of the Parties

Plaintiff: The plaintiff argued that “HOM” had become a popular shorthand identifier for its restaurant and that consumers and media commonly associated the acronym with House of Mandarin. It claimed that the defendant’s use of “HOM” infringed its trademark rights and amounted to passing off.

Defendants: The defendants contended that they had independently and bona fide adopted the mark “HOM” based on its Sanskrit meaning and culinary concept. They argued that the House of Mandarin had no registered or enforceable standalone rights in “HOM,” as its registration pertained only to the composite mark “House of Mandarin.” It was also pointed out that the plaintiff applied for registration of “HOM” only after the defendants’ restaurant was launched.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Deshmukh observed that an acronym can enjoy trademark protection only if it is shown to be consistently used, widely recognised, and contemporaneously documented as an independent brand identifier. The Court held that goodwill in a registered mark does not automatically extend to its abbreviation unless the abbreviation has acquired a distinct public identity.

On examining the material, the Court found that references to “HOM” in articles, invoices, signage, and promotional material were insufficient to demonstrate that the public exclusively or predominantly identified the restaurant by that acronym. The Court noted that on food delivery platforms such as Swiggy and Zomato, the restaurant continued to be listed as “House of Mandarin”, not as “HOM.”

The Court also took into account that the plaintiff sought registration of the standalone “HOM” mark only after the defendants commenced operations. On passing off, the Court found that the essential elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of confusion were not prima facie established. It further observed that both establishments were premium restaurants catering to well-informed and discerning consumers, making the likelihood of confusion even more remote.

Decision

The Bombay High Court held that House of Mandarin failed to establish a prima facie case for trademark infringement or passing off in respect of the acronym “HOM.” Finding no basis to extend protection of the registered mark “House of Mandarin” to its abbreviation, the Court dismissed the interim injunction application, allowing the defendants to continue using the “HOM” mark pending trial.

In this case the plaintiff was represented by Mr. Sandeep Parikh i/b. Mr. Liliaan Daas, Mr. Arsalan Thaver, Ms. Samishka Malekar and Ms. Kajal Panhalkar i/b. Mr. Abhiraj Parab. Meanwhile the defendant was represented by Mr. Anand Mohan a/w. Mr. Lavin Hirani and Mr. Ishan Puranik i/b. Mr. Vikramaditya Chavan, Advocates.