Delhi High Court Upholds Registration Of 'Amritsar Haveli' Marks; Rejects Challenge By Haveli Restaurant
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no restaurant can claim exclusive rights over the commonly used word “Haveli,” dismissing appeals by Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. and upholding the registration of the marks “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” for food and restaurant services. In a judgment on November 24, 2025, Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the restaurant failed...
The Delhi High Court has ruled that no restaurant can claim exclusive rights over the commonly used word “Haveli,” dismissing appeals by Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. and upholding the registration of the marks “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” for food and restaurant services.
In a judgment on November 24, 2025, Justice Tejas Karia ruled that the restaurant failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish exclusive rights over the word or demonstrate that it had acquired a secondary meaning uniquely tied to its services.
The dispute began after Haveli Restaurant opposed two trademark applications filed in 2018 and 2019 for “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” under Class 43 for food and drink services. The restaurant claimed it had used the name “Haveli” since 2001 and built substantial goodwill, arguing that allowing similar marks would mislead customers. The Trademark Registry rejected the opposition in February 2024, prompting the appeals.
However, the High Court noted extensive third-party use of the word “Haveli” across India in relation to hotels, restaurants, and other commercial services. The court held that such widespread usage demonstrated that the term is descriptive and common to the trade.
It observed, “'HAVELI' is publici juris and common to trade and is not uniquely identifiable with a particular goods or services of the Appellant. The Appellant has also not produced any material to show that the Mark 'HAVELI' has acquired secondary meaning. The Mark 'HAVELI' does not have an exclusive character and, therefore, the Appellant is not entitled to claim exclusive right over the same.”
Addressing the argument that the rival restaurant used “Haveli” prominently with “Amritsar” in a smaller font, the court said the Registrar had already evaluated both marks and found no deceptive similarity. It emphasised that trademarks must be compared as a whole applying the anti-dissection rule, rather than isolating individual components.
“The registration of the Device Mark is to be considered as a whole and while determining the deceptive similarity with another Trade Mark, both the Marks have to be examined as a whole by applying 'anti-dissection rule' rather than breaking the Marks into their component parts for comparison…In the present case, the Appellant's Marks and the Impugned Marks if considered as a whole cannot be held to be deceptively similar and are able to be distinguished by the use of word 'AMRITSAR'.”, the Court said.
The court also rejected the contention that the Registrar denied a fair hearing or overlooked evidence, noting that the orders contained a detailed analysis of all submissions.
Consequently, the High Court upheld the Registrar's decision and dismissed the appeals, confirming that the registrations of “Amritsar Haveli” and “The Amritsar Haveli” were correctly granted.
Case Title: Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1584
Case Number: C.A. (COMM.IPD-TM) 57/2024
For Appellant: Advocates Shravan Kumar Bansal and Akash Chaudhary
For Respondents: Senior Advovate J. Sai Deepak with Advocate Anshuman Upadhyay, Naseem, R. Abhishek, Garvit Sharma, Rahul Singh & Shubhangi Shashwat. Advocate R. Venkat Prabhat, SPC with Advocates Daksh Pandit, Kamna Behrani, Ansh Kalra and Siddharth Gautam for Trademark Registry.
Click Here To Read/Download Order