No case of trademark infringement between ‘House of Mandarin’ and ‘HOM’: HC

An interim application by pan Asian restaurant House of Mandarin, that used the abbreviation HOM, against HOM, another upscale restaurant that offers Indian cuisine cooked on an open fire, was recently dismissed by the HC as the judge felt that no case for trademark infringement was made out

Mumbai: Two fine dining restaurants in Bandra were in high court recently over an alleged trademark infringement. An interim application by pan Asian restaurant House of Mandarin, that used the abbreviation HOM, against HOM, another upscale restaurant that offers Indian cuisine cooked on an open fire, was recently dismissed by the HC as the judge felt that no case for trademark infringement was made out. The judge also said that it was unlikely that well-informed customers would be confused between the two premium restaurants.

No case of trademark infringement between ‘House of Mandarin’ and ‘HOM’: HC

Indian Express Commercial Ventures and Projects Limited (IECVPL) that runs the House of Mandarin restaurants in Bandra and Powai had urged the court to restrain Fundamental Hospitality Private Limited (FHPL) that runs HOM in Bandra West, from using the word HOM in their title as the name ‘HOM House of Mandarin’ is trademarked by IECVPL. After registering the trademark in July 2017, IECVPL opened the House of Mandarin restaurant the same year, “which within a short period came to be popularly known by the acronym ‘HOM’, it told the court. IECVPL contended that the general public identifies HOM as the acronym of ‘House Of Mandarin’.

FHPL argued that in November 2024, they floated the idea of launching modern Indian restaurants where open fire would play a central role in the menu and the visual experience. Their independent adoption of the name ‘HOM’, they said, came from ‘Hom’, a Sanskrit word describing the act of pouring or offering something into fire. Their restaurant opened in October this year, located only a few meters away from House of Mandarin in Bandra.

Although they offered different cuisines, IECVPL argued, “two restaurants in the same city cannot simultaneously operate under the identical name HOM without causing confusion.”

Justice Sharmila Deskhmukh, however, said that IECVL’s claims that House of Mandarin popularly came to be known as HOM are “extremely vague, and bereft of any elaboration as to the extent of the identification of HOM with the Plaintiff’s (IECVPL) establishment”. The judge said, even on food delivery apps like Swiggy and Zomato, IECVPL’s restaurant was called House Of Mandarin and not HOM.

Justice Deskhmukh said that the title signs used different fonts and observed that no case for trademark infringement was made out. Justice Deshmukh said, “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.”