Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction in 'Haveli' Trademark Dispute Citing Deceptive Similarity and Prior Use Under Order XXXIX Rules 1&2 CPC. - 2025-08-19

Legal News & Court Updates.

Delhi High Court Halts 'PUNJABI HAVELI' Operations, Citing 'Slavish Imitation' of 'HAVELI' Brand

New Delhi: In a significant ruling on intellectual property rights, the Delhi High Court has granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining Adison Resorts Limited from using the mark 'PUNJABI HAVELI'. The order, passed by Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, found a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, concluding that the defendant had deliberately copied the established 'HAVELI' brand to unlawfully ride on its goodwill.

Background of the Dispute

The lawsuit was filed by Haveli Restaurant & Resorts Ltd., a well-known entity in the food and hospitality sector, which has been using the 'HAVELI' trademark since 2001. The plaintiff argued that it had built substantial goodwill and reputation, particularly in North India, with its mark acquiring a secondary meaning associated exclusively with its establishments. The company holds multiple registered trademarks for the word 'HAVELI' and its distinctive logo, operating five popular outlets under the brand.

The defendant, Adison Resorts Limited, recently began operating under the name 'PUNJABI HAVELI' and had applied to register the mark on a 'proposed to be used' basis in July 2023. The dispute was compounded by the fact that the two parties had previously engaged in unsuccessful business discussions in 2021, during which the plaintiff had shared business and aesthetic insights.

Plaintiff's Arguments: A Case of Deliberate Misappropriation

Counsel for Haveli Restaurant & Resorts Ltd. contended that the defendant's actions amounted to a "slavish imitation" of their brand identity. The key arguments were:

• Prior Use: The plaintiff asserted superior rights to the 'HAVELI' mark based on over two decades of prior, continuous, and extensive commercial use.
• Deceptive Similarity: It was argued that the defendant not only copied the core 'HAVELI' mark but also replicated the plaintiff's trade dress, including the distinctive red and white colour scheme, font style, artistic layout, and overall thematic ambience of its restaurants. The addition of the word 'PUNJABI' in a small, insignificant font was presented as a deliberate tactic to mislead consumers.
• Customer Confusion: The plaintiff submitted evidence from social media where customers, intending to refer to the defendant's restaurant, had mistakenly tagged the plaintiff's official social media pages, demonstrating actual confusion in the market.
• Bad Faith: The defendant's conduct was highlighted as dishonest, particularly their use of the Registered (®) symbol with the 'PUNJABI HAVELI' mark, despite the trademark application being unapproved.

Court's Prima Facie Findings

Justice Arora, after hearing the plaintiff's counsel and perusing the record, found a strong prima facie case in their favour. The court's reasoning was based on several key observations extracted from the judgment:

"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 noted the defendant's replication of multiple brand elements:

"The Defendant has used the colour scheme of Red and White colour, which is identical to the colour scheme used by the Plaintiff... 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."

Concluding on the defendant's intent, the court stated:

"...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."

The court concluded that the three essential conditions for an interim injunction—a prima facie case, the balance of convenience favouring the plaintiff, and the likelihood of irreparable loss—were all met.

Final Decision and Directions

The Delhi High Court issued a comprehensive ex-parte ad interim injunction against Adison Resorts Limited. The defendant, its agents, and representatives are restrained from using the impugned mark 'PUNJABI HAVELI' or any other deceptively similar mark in any form, including on branding, advertising, and social media.

The court further directed the defendant to: 1. Remove all boards, hoardings, and display materials bearing the 'PUNJABI HAVELI' mark. 2. Delete all social media accounts and remove listings from third-party websites under the impugned mark.

The defendant has been given one week from the receipt of the order to comply with these directions. Failure to do so may result in the appointment of a Local Commissioner to ensure compliance.

The matter is scheduled to be listed before the Joint Registrar on September 26, 2025, for completion of pleadings, and before the Court on February 17, 2026.