Introduction:
In an important decision clarifying the scope of trademark protection for abbreviations and acronyms, the Bombay High Court has refused to grant interim relief to a well-known Mumbai-based Chinese cuisine restaurant that sought to restrain another restaurant from using the mark “HOM.” The Court held that merely being an acronym of a registered trademark does not automatically confer independent trademark rights unless such abbreviation has acquired distinct goodwill and recognition in the public mind. The ruling reinforces a crucial principle of trademark law: registration and goodwill in a composite mark do not automatically extend to its shortened form unless strict evidentiary requirements are met.
The order was passed on December 19, 2025, by Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh, in a commercial intellectual property dispute involving Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd., which operates the restaurant House of Mandarin, and Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and another, which launched a premium restaurant under the mark “HOM.” The plaintiff approached the High Court alleging trademark infringement and passing off, claiming exclusive rights over the acronym “HOM,” contending that it had become synonymous with its restaurant brand.
After a detailed analysis of trademark jurisprudence relating to acronyms, goodwill, and consumer perception, the Court concluded that no prima facie case was made out and that the plaintiff failed to establish that “HOM” had acquired a distinct identity independent of the registered mark “House of Mandarin.” Consequently, the application for interim injunction was dismissed.
Arguments of the Plaintiff:
The plaintiff, Indian Express and Commercial Ventures and Projects Pvt. Ltd., submitted that it had adopted the trademark “House of Mandarin” as early as 2016 and commenced restaurant operations in Mumbai in 2017. Over time, according to the plaintiff, the restaurant gained popularity and goodwill, and customers, patrons, media outlets, and the general public began referring to it by the abbreviated hookup “HOM.” The plaintiff argued that this acronym had become an identifying shorthand for its brand in common parlance.
It was contended that the plaintiff operates multiple outlets, including in Bandra and Powai, under the names “HOM” and “HOM House of Mandarin,” thereby reinforcing public association between the acronym and the plaintiff’s business. The plaintiff further claimed that it had invested significant resources in brand promotion and marketing, leading to widespread recognition of “HOM” as an extension of its registered trademark.
Relying on principles of trademark law, the plaintiff argued that goodwill in a registered trademark can extend to its abbreviation, provided the abbreviation is derived from and consistently used in connection with the original mark. It was submitted that the defendant’s adoption of “HOM” was likely to cause confusion among consumers, leading them to believe that the defendant’s restaurant was associated with, endorsed by, or connected to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff also relied on instances of use of “HOM” in news articles, promotional materials, invoices, and signage, asserting that these demonstrated that the acronym had entered the public domain as a recognizable identifier of its restaurant. The plaintiff emphasized that it had also applied for trademark registration of “HOM” and allied marks, further evidencing its intention to protect its rights.
On the basis of these submissions, the plaintiff sought an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark “HOM,” pending disposal of the suit.
Arguments of the Defendants:
The defendants, Fundamental Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. and another, strongly opposed the grant of interim relief and contended that the plaintiff was attempting to monopolize a common acronym without satisfying the legal requirements for exclusive trademark protection.
The defendants argued that they had independently and honestly adopted the mark “HOM,” deriving it from its Sanskrit meaning, which is traditionally associated with fire rituals. According to the defendants, their restaurant concept was centered on open-fire cooking, and the mark “HOM” was conceptually aligned with their culinary philosophy and brand narrative. The defendants submitted that their restaurant under the mark “HOM” was launched in October 2025, and there was no dishonest intent or attempt to ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill.
It was further argued that the plaintiff had no registered trademark rights in the standalone acronym “HOM.” The plaintiff’s registration was limited to the composite mark “House of Mandarin,” and trademark law does not automatically confer rights over abbreviations unless they have independently acquired distinctiveness.
The defendants also highlighted that the plaintiff applied for registration of the standalone “HOM” mark only after the defendants launched their restaurant, suggesting that the claim over “HOM” was an afterthought and reactive in nature. This, according to the defendants, weakened the plaintiff’s case and demonstrated lack of prior exclusive ownership.
On the issue of passing off, the defendants submitted that both restaurants were premium dining establishments catering to a discerning, well-informed, and educated consumer base. In such circumstances, the likelihood of confusion was minimal, particularly when the plaintiff’s restaurant continued to be widely known and listed under its full name, “House of Mandarin.”
Court’s Judgment:
After considering the rival submissions and examining the material on record, the Bombay High Court dismissed the plaintiff’s application for interim injunction, holding that no prima facie case of infringement or passing off was made out.
Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh began by noting that the plaintiff’s infringement claim was not based on its registered trademark “House of Mandarin”, but rather on the acronym “HOM.” The Court therefore framed the central issue as whether goodwill and statutory protection in a registered mark could be extended to an abbreviation of that mark.
The Court reiterated the settled principle that while trademark law does recognize protection for abbreviations, such protection is conditional. To extend the benefit of registration and use of a trademark to an acronym, it must be shown that the abbreviation has been consistently used, widely recognized, and contemporaneously documented in the public domain as a brand identifier. The Court observed:
“To extend the benefit of use and registration of a registered trade mark to an acronym, the acronym must be shown to be consistently in public domain and contemporaneously documented.”
Applying this test to the facts of the case, the Court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that “HOM” had acquired independent goodwill or distinct public recognition. The references relied upon by the plaintiff—such as sporadic mentions in news articles, invoices, promotional materials, and signage—were held to be insufficient to establish that consumers primarily or exclusively identified the restaurant as “HOM.”
A crucial factor noted by the Court was that on popular food delivery platforms like Swiggy and Zomato, the plaintiff’s restaurant continued to be listed as “House of Mandarin” and not as “HOM.” This, according to the Court, significantly undermined the plaintiff’s claim that “HOM” had become its dominant brand identifier in the public mind.
The Court also attached importance to the timing of the plaintiff’s application for registration of the standalone “HOM” mark, noting that it was filed after the defendants launched their restaurant. This weakened the plaintiff’s assertion of prior and exclusive rights.
On the issue of passing off, the Court held that the plaintiff failed to prima facie establish the essential elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of confusion. The Court observed that both establishments were premium restaurants catering to a sophisticated clientele, making consumer confusion unlikely. It noted:
“It is also not denied that both the restaurants are premium restaurants which would obviously cater to a distinct well informed and well-educated consumer base and the likelihood of confusion is bleak in such cases.”
In light of these findings, the Court concluded that the association of the abbreviation “HOM” with the plaintiff in the public mind remained unsatisfied, and therefore no benefit of registration of “House of Mandarin” could be extended to maintain an action for infringement of “HOM.” Consequently, the application for interim relief was dismissed.