Delhi High Court: In an application filed by the Haveli Restaurants and Resorts Ltd., (‘the plaintiff’) seeking ex-parte ad interim injunction against the defendant to prevent them from using the plaintiff’s trade mark ‘HAVELI’, cultural theme, artistic layout and the overall ambience of the plaintiff’s establishments running under the name and brand of HAVELI, a Single Judge Bench of Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora J., stated that the defendant had replicated the unique stylistic elements, including the font style and artistic features of the plaintiff’s mark including red and white colour scheme with a sole intention to unlawfully ride upon the of plaintiff’s goodwill. The Court stated that the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss in case the defendant is not restrained from the using impugned trade mark/trade name (‘PUNJABI HAVELI’).
The Court thus stated that a prima facie case was established in favour of the plaintiff and passed an ex parte ad-interim injunction restricting the defendant and its proprietors from using, selling, manufacturing, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising directly or indirectly or dealing in any other manner or mode in the impugned mark/label/logo. The Court alsodirected the removal of boards, hoarding, display material and social media accounts using the impugned mark.
Background:
The plaintiff had been extensively operating in the food and hospitality sector across India since 2001, using the trade mark HAVELI/
The plaintiff had actively cultivated and expanded the HAVELI brand’s visibility through a dedicated digital presence, ensuring widespread recognition and direct engagement with its clientele. The plaintiff’s official website, served as a central hub for information regarding the goods and services offered under the HAVELI mark. Through long-standing and widespread use, particularly in North India, the HAVELI mark had acquired secondary meaning and is regarded as a well-known and exclusive brand within the industry, with superior rights by virtue of prior and continuous use.
The defendant had applied to register the mark PUNJABI HAVELI in Class 43 on a ‘proposed to be used’ basis on 10-7-2023. Around 2021, the parties had engaged in preliminary discussions regarding a possible collaboration, during which the plaintiff, in good faith had shared business concepts and aesthetic insights. However, no agreement or understanding was ever finalized. The defendant had subsequently proceeded to renovate and rebrand its premises.
It was submitted by the plaintiff that by imitating the plaintiff’s artistic layout, interior design, cultural theme, visual motifs, colour scheme, and the overall ambience of the plaintiff’s outlets and had gone to the extent of falsely affixing the Registered (®) symbol on the impugned mark, despite the fact that their mark has not been granted registration. The defendant had thus created a deceptive and misleading environment to give the false impression of being affiliated with or endorsed by the plaintiff.
The plaintiff thus, filed the present application in the Court for grant of an ex-parte ad interim injunction
Case Analysis and Decision:
The Court observed that it was a matter of record that the plaintiff was the registered owner of the word mark ‘HAVELI’ and the logo/device mark 
The Court observed that on a visual comparison of the plaintiff’s trade marks with defendant’s mark , it was evident that the defendant had attempted to create an impression that the goods and services provided by them under the impugned mark were associated with the plaintiff. Further, the defendant’s mark used a red and white colour scheme and also replicated the unique stylistic elements, including the font style and artistic features of the plaintiff’s mark.The Court further observed that the defendant had affixed the plaintiff’s trade mark HAVELI with another word i.e., ‘PUNJABI’, however it was incorporated in such a small font, that it remained insignificant to the eyes of the viewers, misleading them into believing that the defendant’s restaurant was associated with the plaintiff. The Court further noted that screenshots from plaintiff’s social media showed that users had mistakenly tagged the plaintiff’s official page when referring to the defendant’s restaurant.
The Court observed that a prima facie case was made in the plaintiff’s favour as the impugned mark was identical to the plaintiff’s trade marks and was intentionally copied to unlawfully ride on the plaintiff’s goodwill. The Court, thus, held that the balance of convenience lay in favour of the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff would suffer irreparable loss in case the defendant was not restrained from the using the impugned trade mark/trade name.
The Court thus, restricted the defendant and all others acting for and on their behalf, from using, selling, manufacturing, soliciting, exporting, displaying, advertising, 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 trade mark or any other any other variants/ formative of plaintiffs trade marks/labels of in relation to their impugned goods or any other trademark/label which may be identical with and/or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s said trade mark/label/logo.
The Court further directed the defendant to remove/delete the board/hoarding/ display material, social media accounts of “PUNJABI HAVELI/
The matter is next listed for hearing before the Court on 17-2-2026.
[Haveli Restraunts and resorts Ltd v. Adison Resorts Ltd, 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5794, decided on 19-8-2025]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiffs: Raunaq Kamath, Asavari Jain, Himani and Aakriti Jain, Advocates
For the Defendant: Rishabh Dev Mishra, Amit Mahaliyan, Sreeja Sengupta, Advocates