IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
HAVELI RESTAURANTS AND RESORTS LTD. VS. AMRITSAR HAVELI CUISINES PVT. LTD. & ANR.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2025
$~29 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2025 VIVEK VERMA & ORS. .....Appellants Through: Mr. Anirudh Bakhru, Mr. Prakhar Sharma and Ms. Piya Uppal, Advocates.
versus THE REGISTRAR OF TRADEMARKS & ANR. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Nidhi Raman, CGSC with Mr.
Om Ram, Mr. Arnav Mittal and Mr. Mayank Sansanwal, Advocates for R1.
Mr. Priyanshu Jaiswal, Mr. Dharmendra Yadav and Mr. Pawan Garg, Advocates for R2.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA
O R D E R
% 01.12.2025 I.A. 29849/2025(Exemption)
1. Exemption is allowed, subject to all just exceptions.
2. The Application stands disposed of. I.A. 29869/2025 (Condonation of Delay)
3. This is an Application filed on behalf of the Appellants under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (“CPC”) seeking condonation of delay of 13 days in re-filing the present Appeal.
4. For the reasons stated in the Application, the same is allowed. The delay of 13 days in re-filing the present Appeal is hereby condoned.
5. The Application stands disposed of.
C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 82/2025
6. This is an Appeal filed under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“Act”) read with Rule 156 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017, challenging the order dated 08.07.2025 (“Impugned Order”) passed by Respondent No. 1 dismissing Opposition No. 840450 (“Opposition”) against registration of the Trade Mark, ‘PALANG TORE MARD CHOURI PATTI’ (“Impugned Mark”), in Class 34 under Trade Mark Application No. 2204559.
7. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 accept Notice.
8. Let the Reply be filed within a period of four weeks from date. Rejoinder thereto, if any, may be filed within a period of two weeks thereafter.
9. List before the Court on 16.03.2026.
I.A. 29848/2025(U/O XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC)
10. This is an Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC, seeking stay on registration of the Impugned Mark during the pendency of the present Appeal.
11. Issue Notice. The learned Counsel for Respondent No. 1 and Respondent No. 2 accept Notice.
12. The learned Counsel for the Appellant made the following submissions:
12.1. The Appellant’s predecessor adopted the Word Mark, ‘PALANG TORE MARD’ and the Device Mark,
registration of the Appellant’s Marks are as under:
12.2. Respondent No. 2, filed the Application for the registration of the Impugned Mark on 13.09.2011 on a proposed to be used basis in Class 34, i.e., the same Class in which the Appellant is operating. The Appellant’s predecessor filed the Opposition against the registration of the Impugned Mark on 18.11.2015. On 11.07.2024, after completion of pleadings, the order was reserved in the Opposition proceedings and the Impugned Order has been passed after a delay of one year on
08.07.2025.
12.3. Considering that the Impugned Mark and the Appellant’s Marks are identical, the goods being sold under the rival Marks are identical in nature and the purchaser of the goods under the rival Marks belongs to the illiterate sections of the society, the likelihood of deception and confusion in the market is inevitable.
12.4. While the pronouncement of the judgment in the Opposition was pending, Respondent No. 2 filed Trade Mark Application No. 6874180 for registration of the Device Mark,
‘ ’.
12.5. The Trade Mark Application No. 5144202 which was filed by a third-party for registration of the Mark, ‘PALANGTORE MARD CHAURI PATTI’ was refused on the ground that it is deceptively similar to
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.