Safiya Malik

The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora directed that the defendant be restrained from using the impugned mark in any form until the next date of hearing. The Court issued summons to the defendant and directed compliance with the requirements for filing written statements and affidavits. It further ordered the removal of all hoardings, advertisements, and social media accounts associated with the impugned mark and warned of the appointment of a Local Commissioner if compliance was not ensured. The Court also permitted exemption from pre-institution mediation, filing of certified and translated documents at a later stage, and exemption from advance service. The matter has been listed for further proceedings before the Joint Registrar and the Court on the specified dates.

The plaintiff, a company operating extensively in the hospitality sector, claimed extensive use and recognition of its mark since 2001. It was submitted that the plaintiff had consistently utilized the mark in commerce, building significant goodwill and establishing the mark as a distinctive identifier of its goods and services. Details of registered and applied-for trademarks were placed on record, covering multiple classes, with usage across trade dress, packaging, branding materials, websites, and promotional content. The mark was represented in English, Punjabi, and Hindi, with claimed cultural significance and recognition.

Also Read: Supreme Court | Delay in Compliance of Order Does Not Constitute Wilful Contempt | Pension Claim Rejected as Beyond Scope of Original Relief | Compensation Directed to Legal Heirs

The plaintiff submitted that the artistic work embodied in its trademark, trade dress, and packaging constituted original works under the Copyright Act, 1957, and that copyright registration had been obtained for a literary work titled 'Standard of Practice at Haveli/ Restaurant & Resorts Limited' under Registration No. L-135510/2023. It was further claimed that the plaintiff’s turnover for the financial year 2023-2024 was Rs.151.54 crores, and historical financial data had been provided. The plaintiff argued that its trademark had acquired secondary meaning and was regarded as a well-known and exclusive brand, particularly in North India.

The plaintiff relied on the principle of ‘prior use,’ contending that uninterrupted use since 2001 granted superior rights over later applicants. It was asserted that the plaintiff operated multiple establishments under the brand name, including outlets in Murthal, Jalandhar, and Amritsar, supported by photographs in the record. The plaintiff also provided details of its digital presence through its official website and social media accounts.

It was alleged that the defendant had applied for registration of the mark “Punjabi Haveli” on a proposed-to-be-used basis in July 2023, covering services related to food, drink, and temporary accommodation. The plaintiff stated that in 2021, both parties had engaged in discussions regarding a potential business arrangement, during which certain conceptual and business insights were shared, but no agreement was finalized. Despite this, the plaintiff alleged, the defendant proceeded to replicate the plaintiff’s theme, artistic layout, motifs, colour schemes, and ambience.

According to the plaintiff, the defendant adopted deceptive practices by using elements identical to the plaintiff’s distinctive branding and falsely affixing the registered symbol ® to the impugned mark, despite not having obtained registration. The plaintiff contended that such conduct misled customers into associating the defendant’s services with the plaintiff. Evidence placed on record included screenshots of social media posts where customers had mistakenly tagged the plaintiff’s official pages while referring to the defendant’s establishment.

The plaintiff argued that the defendant’s conduct constituted misappropriation of goodwill and reputation, creating a recurring injury to its brand. A visual comparison of the competing marks was placed on record, showing similarities between the plaintiff’s “Haveli” and the defendant’s “Punjabi Haveli.” Additional comparisons of online and offline branding, hoardings, trade dress, and overall ambience were submitted. It was argued that the defendant’s adoption of a red and white colour scheme, stylistic elements, and font was designed to mislead customers. The incorporation of the word “Punjabi” in a minor font was said to be insufficient to distinguish the impugned mark from the plaintiff’s mark.

On this basis, the plaintiff sought an ex-parte ad-interim injunction, along with ancillary relief including the appointment of a Local Commissioner to secure infringing material.

The Court recorded that on a visual comparison of the trademarks and trade dress, the defendant had attempted to create an impression of association with the plaintiff. It was noted that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the word mark “Haveli” and its logo/device, and had also applied for registration of several variants. In contrast, the defendant’s application for “Punjabi Haveli” was only on a proposed-to-be-used basis.

The Court observed: “On a visual comparison of the Plaintiff’s trademarks and the Defendant’s impugned mark, it is evident that the Defendant has made an attempt to create an impression that the goods and services provided by the Defendant under the impugned mark are associated with the Plaintiff.”

The Court further recorded that the defendant had adopted the colour scheme of red and white identical to the plaintiffs, as well as stylistic and artistic elements: “The Defendant has not only replicated the Plaintiff’s trademark’s font style but has also replicated the artistic elements employed by the Plaintiff’s for its trademark.” It was also observed that the use of “Punjabi” in a smaller font rendered it insignificant, thereby misleading customers.

The Court stated: “In view of the aforesaid, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the impugned mark of the Defendant is identical to the trademarks of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant has copied all the features of the Plaintiff’s trademarks with a sole intention to unlawfully ride upon the of Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation.”

It further noted evidence placed on record by the plaintiff showing customer confusion: “The Plaintiff in the plaint has placed on record the screenshot(s) of the social media post, which shows that customers while referring to Defendant’s restaurant has tagged the Plaintiff’s official social media page.”

Based on these findings, the Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for interim relief, with the balance of convenience in its favour, and that irreparable loss would be caused in the absence of restraint orders.

The Court directed that until the next date of hearing, the defendant, its individual proprietors, partners, agents, representatives, distributors, assigns, heirs, successors, stockists, and all others acting for and on their behalf are restrained “from using, selling, manufacturing, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising [including audio/print/visual/social media or otherwise], directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode in the impugned mark/label/logo, which is deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s trademark Haveli/… or any other variants/formative of Plaintiff’s trademarks/labels of in relation to their impugned goods and business and other allied/cognate/related goods or any other trademark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the Plaintiffs said trademark/label/logo.”

The Court additionally directed: “It is further directed that the Defendant shall remove the board/ hoarding/ display material of ‘Punjabi Haveli/ ’ as well immediately remove/delete social media accounts. The Defendant shall also remove his advertisements/listings under the impugned mark from third-party websites.”

The Court mandated that “the Defendant shall comply with the interim directions passed by this Court within one (1) week from receipt of order.” It was specifically recorded that in case of failure to comply with these directions, “this Court will appoint a Local Commissioner [as sought by the Plaintiff in IA 18783/2025] to ensure that the order passed today is duly complied with.”

Also Read: Delhi High Court Upholds Honest Use Defence Under Section 35, Trade Marks Act | Use of Full Name Not Mandatory for Statutory Protection

The Court further issued notice to the defendant through all permissible modes. It recorded: “Let the reply to this application be filed by the Defendant within a period of four (4) weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, be filed within a period of four (4) weeks thereafter.”

It was also ordered that “the provisions of Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC shall be complied within one (1) week from today.” The Court directed the listing of the matter before the Joint Registrar (J) for completion of services and pleadings on 26 September 2025 and before the Court on 17 February 2026.

The Court also dealt with the application numbered I.A. 18783/2025. It recorded: “This is an application under Order XXVI Rule 9 CPC read with Order XXXIX Rule 7 CPC, filed by the Plaintiffs for appointment of a Local Commissioner to visit the Defendant’s premises and to take in his custody the impugned goods.” It was ordered: “Issue notice.” The Court further directed: “Let a reply be filed within four (4) weeks. Rejoinder, if any, be filed within four (4) weeks thereafter.” The matter was listed before the Joint Registrar (J) for completion of service and pleadings on 26 September 2025 and before the Court on 17 February 2026.

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioners: Mr. Rishi Bansal, Mr. Akash Chaudhary and Mr. Mankaran Singh Ahluwalia, Advocates

Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd v. Adison Resorts Limited

Case Number: CS(COMM) 791/2025

Bench: Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora