Bombay High Court Denies Interim Relief To Chinese Restaurant House of Mandarin In 'HOM' Trademark Dispute

The Bombay High Court has refused interim relief to a Mumbai Chinese cuisine restaurant, House of Mandarin, in a trademark infringement and passing off suit over the use of the mark “HOM.”

By an order dated December 19, 2025, Justice Sharmila U Deshmukh held that no prima facie case was made out. The court said House of Mandarin failed to show that the acronym “HOM” had acquired independent goodwill or public recognition capable of causing consumer confusion.

It 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,”

House of Mandarin runs a Chinese cuisine restaurant in Mumbai. It said it adopted the mark “House of Mandarin” in 2016 and began operations in 2017. It claimed that the restaurant soon came to be popularly known as “HOM.”

It said customers, media and the public identified it by that acronym. It also said it operates outlets under the names “HOM” and “HOM House of Mandarin” in Bandra and Powai. It has applied for registration of “HOM” and related marks.

The rival- another Mumbai restaurant opposed interim relief. It said it independently adopted the mark “HOM” based on its Sanskrit meaning linked to fire rituals. It said the concept focused on open-fire cooking.

It stated that its restaurant under the mark “HOM” was launched in October 2025. The adoption, HOM said, was honest and bona fide. It also argued that House of Mandarin had no registered or enforceable standalone rights in “HOM,” as its registration was limited to the composite “House of Mandarin” mark.

The court noted that the infringement claim was not based on the registered mark “House of Mandarin,” but on the abbreviation “HOM.” It examined whether goodwill in a registered mark could extend to its acronym. It said this is recognised only when the abbreviation becomes a clear brand identifier in the public mind.

On the material on record, the court found that references to “HOM” in news articles, invoices, signage and promotional material were not enough. They did not show that the restaurant was popularly or exclusively identified by that acronym. It also 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 noted that House of Mandarin applied for registration of the standalone “HOM” mark only after the rival restaurant was launched.

It observed, "The requirement of association of the abbreviation “HOM” in public mind with the Plaintiff has prima facie remained unsatisfied in present case and therefore no benefit of registration of the trade mark “House of Mandarin” can be extended to “HOM” to maintain an action for infringement of the mark HOM."

On passing off, the court held that the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of confusion were not prima facie established.

It added, “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.”

Accordingly, the court dismissed House of Mandarin's application seeking an interim injunction.