The appellant was engaged in the hospitality business and operated restaurants using the name HAVELI. It relied on multiple trademark registrations, including logo and composite marks, and claimed use of the word HAVELI for several years. Another party adopted the marks AMRITSAR HAVELI and THE AMRITSAR HAVELI for services relating to providing food and drinks. The appellant alleged that use of these marks diluted its rights and caused confusion due to the presence of the word HAVELI.<\/p>\n
1. Whether registration and use of a logo or composite mark grants exclusive rights over an individual word forming part of the mark.
\n2. Whether the word HAVELI is common to trade or descriptive for restaurant and hospitality services.
\n3. Whether the composite marks AMRITSAR HAVELI and THE AMRITSAR HAVELI are deceptively similar to the appellant\u2019s marks.
\n4. Whether use of the impugned marks was likely to cause confusion or deception.
\n5. Whether the appellant had established secondary meaning in the word HAVELI.<\/p>\n
The appellant claimed prior use of the mark HAVELI and asserted that long use had resulted in goodwill and reputation. It argued that the impugned marks were visually and phonetically similar and covered identical services, which would lead to consumer confusion. It also argued that the addition of the word AMRITSAR did not sufficiently distinguish the marks.<\/p>\n
The respondent contended that HAVELI is a common word with a dictionary meaning and is widely used in the hospitality industry. It further argued that no trader can monopolise such a word and that trademarks must be assessed as a whole. The respondent further stated that the composite marks were distinctive and did not cause confusion.<\/p>\n
The court stated that trademark protection does not permit exclusivity over a common word merely because it appears in a registered logo or composite mark. According to the court:<\/p>\n
\u201cThe Appellant has failed to show the use of the Appellant\u2019s Mark \u2018HAVELI\u2019 per se for food services under Class 43 and therefore, the Appellant cannot assert exclusivity over the word \u2018HAVELI\u2019.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the nature of the word HAVELI and its use in the hospitality sector, the court observed:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere are several Trade Marks, either registered or pending registration in India, which include the term \u2018HAVELI\u2019 and is commonly used for services falling under Class 43. Hence, no one can assert a monopolistic right over such a common term.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the contention that AMRITSAR is a geographical name, the court stated:<\/p>\n
\u201cWhile a city may be associated with a particular food item, it does not extend to the entirety of food services and the registration of a city name is permissible if it does not function as an indication of geographical origin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The court examined the impugned marks as a whole and held:<\/strong><\/p>\n
\u201cHaving considered the Impugned Marks in its entirety, the same are distinctive and do not serve as an indication of geographical origin.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On dishonest adoption and confusion, the court stated:<\/p>\n
\u201cThere was no evidence on record to show that the Impugned Marks have been dishonestly adopted and there is no likelihood of confusion or deception in the public as the Impugned Marks are distinctive.\u201d<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
The court also stated that mere use and sales figures were not sufficient to establish secondary meaning in a common word.<\/p>\n
Findings<\/h5>\n
The court held that the appellant could not claim exclusive rights over the word HAVELI. It upheld the registration of the marks AMRITSAR HAVELI and THE AMRITSAR HAVELI. It found no likelihood of confusion or deception and held that logo or composite mark protection does not extend to monopolising a common word.<\/p>\n
Case Citation<\/h5>\n
Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar of Trade Marks and Another, C A COMM IPD TM 57 of 2024 and 58 of 2024, decided on 24 November 2025 by the Delhi High Court.<\/p>\n