Generic Hospitality Terms and Composite Marks: Delhi High Court Declines Monopoly over “HAVELI” in Class 43

I. Introduction

The decision of the Delhi High Court in Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr., C.A. (COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 & 58/2024 (judgment dated 24 November 2025, per Tejas Karia J.) is an important addition to Indian trade mark jurisprudence on:

the generic and non-distinctive character of widely used descriptive terms in the hospitality sector (here, “HAVELI”);
the limits of exclusivity over components of composite marks, especially device/label marks;
what is required to establish secondary meaning for such terms; and
the approach to opposition proceedings and appeals under Section 91 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The appellant, Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited (“Appellant”), runs a well-known Punjabi-style restaurant brand under the name “HAVELI” and holds several registrations and applications over device and word marks containing “HAVELI” in various classes, primarily for food products and related goods. The second respondent (“Respondent No. 2”) operates “Amritsar Haveli” / “The Amritsar Haveli” restaurants across India and holds or has applied for trade marks incorporating these terms in Class 43 (services for providing food & drinks).

The Appeals arose from orders of the Registrar of Trade Marks (“Impugned Orders”) dismissing the Appellant’s oppositions and allowing Respondent No. 2’s applications for registration of “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” in Class 43. The central contest was whether the Appellant could claim a species of monopoly over the word “HAVELI” for hospitality services, such that any mark containing “HAVELI” in Class 43 should be refused registration.

II. Summary of the Judgment

The Court dismissed both appeals and affirmed the Impugned Orders, holding in essence that:

No exclusive right in “HAVELI” for Class 43: The Appellant failed to establish any exclusive ownership of the word “HAVELI” for food and drink services. Its registration was confined to a device mark in Class 30 and a word mark in Class 16, not a standalone “HAVELI” word mark in Class 43.
“HAVELI” is generic/common to trade and publici juris: The term “HAVELI” has a dictionary meaning (traditional townhouse/mansion), is widely used across India in hospitality and related fields, and appears in multiple registered marks of various proprietors. It is therefore descriptive/non-distinctive and “common to trade”.
No deceptive similarity between the Appellant’s marks and the Impugned Marks: When the marks are assessed as a whole, “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” are not deceptively similar to the Appellant’s device mark or its Class 16 word mark. The shared element “HAVELI” is generic and cannot be monopolised.
Anti-dissection rule and composite marks: Registration of a composite/device mark confers statutory rights only in the mark as a whole (Section 17). It does not, by itself, grant exclusivity over individual descriptive components such as “HAVELI”.
No established secondary meaning in “HAVELI” for the Appellant: The Appellant’s material was insufficient to prove that “HAVELI” had come to denote exclusively its services in the minds of the public. Unchallenged evidence of widespread third-party use undermined exclusivity and secondary meaning.
Registrar’s factual assessment and procedure upheld: The Court found the Impugned Orders to be reasoned, based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. There was no denial of opportunity or procedural unfairness warranting interference under Section 91.

Consequently, the Court refused to set aside the registrations of “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” in favour of Respondent No. 2 in Class 43.

III. Detailed Analysis

1. Factual and Procedural Background

The Appellant, originally incorporated as Asha Builders Pvt. Ltd. in 1997 and renamed Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Limited in 2009, claims to have started its first “HAVELI” restaurant in Jalandhar on 01.01.2001. It has a history of multiple trade mark applications for “HAVELI” and derivatives across classes, many of which have been refused, opposed, or abandoned. Crucially:

Registration No. 1050588 – a device mark featuring “HAVELI” – in Class 30 (food products);
Registration No. 1678679 – “HAVELI” (word) in Class 16 (paper, printed matter, stationery, etc.).

In contrast, Respondent No. 2:

applied for and obtained multiple registrations such as “AMRITSAR HAVELI”, “AMRITSARI HAVELI”, etc., in Class 43;
runs over 30 restaurants across India and is expanding further; and
holds registered copyrights in certain artistic labels containing “Amritsar Haveli” motifs.

The present Appeals arose from the Registrar’s orders:

dismissing the Appellant’s oppositions; and
allowing Respondent No. 2’s applications No. 4263978 (AMRITSAR HAVELI) and 3913481 (THE AMRITSAR HAVELI) in Class 43.

The Appellant’s grounds included:

prior registration and use of “HAVELI”;
likelihood of confusion under Sections 9, 11, 12 and 18 of the Trade Marks Act;
claimed distinctiveness and alleged well-known status of “HAVELI” for its services; and
asserted procedural unfairness and inadequate consideration of evidence by the Registrar.

2. Core Legal Issues

The Court framed and effectively addressed the following issues:

Exclusive rights: Does the Appellant have an exclusive right in the word “HAVELI” for services of providing food and drinks (Class 43)?
Genericness/common to trade: Is the term “HAVELI” generic or descriptive and “common to trade”, particularly in the hospitality context?
Deceptive similarity: Are “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” deceptively similar to the Appellant’s marks, creating a likelihood of confusion?
Effect of prior registry history & conduct: What is the significance of:
- multiple rejections of the Appellant’s “HAVELI” applications, unchallenged in appeal; and
- its earlier stance that different “HAVELI”-formative marks are visually/phonetic distinct?
Evidence of use and secondary meaning: Did the Appellant satisfactorily prove extensive prior use and acquired distinctiveness of “HAVELI” in relation to restaurant services?
Scope of interference under Section 91: Did the Registrar misapply Sections 9, 11, 12, 17 and 18 such that the High Court ought to interfere?

3. Precedents and Authorities Considered

3.1 Generic/descriptive marks and secondary meaning

The Court’s approach aligns with, and relies on, existing jurisprudence on generic/descriptive marks and secondary meaning, particularly:

Vasundhara Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. v. Kirat Vinodbhai Jadvani, 2022:DHC:4255-DB
The Division Bench held that “Vasundhara”, being a commonly used name, is intrinsically a weak mark. To claim exclusivity over such a common word, the proprietor must establish that, due to extensive and exclusive use, it has come to be identified only with that proprietor. Having merely a single store was insufficient to meet this high threshold.
Application here: The Court analogised “HAVELI” to “Vasundhara” – a common word with many third-party registrations. The Appellant’s single-location (or limited) presence in Punjab could not justify a monopoly over “HAVELI” across India in Class 43.
People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Vivek Pahwa & Ors., 2016 SCC OnLine Bom 7351 (“shaadi.com” case)
The Bombay High Court elaborated the concept of secondary meaning and held:
- There is no presumption of secondary meaning for common, descriptive expressions.
- A claimant must show long, uninterrupted, exclusive use such that the expression ceases to convey its original descriptive meaning and is identified only with the claimant’s business.
- Widespread use by others, even in the face of cease-and-desist letters, negates exclusivity and secondary meaning.
Application here: The Court relied on similar reasoning: multiple “HAVELI”-formative registrations and widespread third-party use in the hospitality sector undermined any claim that “HAVELI” had acquired secondary meaning exclusively for the Appellant’s services.
Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Co-op. Milk Marketing Federation Ltd., 2008 (36) PTC 168 (Del) (“SUGAR FREE” case)
The Delhi High Court recognised that even if “SUGAR FREE” had some distinctiveness for the plaintiff, it remained a purely descriptive, laudatory term. Others could use it in a descriptive sense, and the plaintiff must tolerate some confusion inherent in adopting a descriptive trade mark.
Application here: By analogy, the Court held that “HAVELI”, having descriptive connotations and being commonly used, cannot be monopolised, and the Appellant must accept the risk of some coexistence and limited confusion.

3.2 Composite marks, anti-dissection and Section 17

Ganesh Gouri Industries v. R.C. Plasto Tanks & Pipes (P) Ltd., (2024) 5 HCC (Del) 425
The Division Bench reinforced the anti-dissection rule: the commercial impression of a composite mark is created by the mark taken as a whole, not by dissecting it into parts. A registration for a label/device confers rights over the entire mark, not on each constituent word or feature.
Application here: This rationale was applied to the Appellant’s device mark featuring “HAVELI” in Class 30. The Court held that such registration does not give statutory exclusivity over the word “HAVELI” in isolation, especially when that word is descriptive/common.

The Court also implicitly relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act: where a trade mark comprises several elements, registration confers exclusivity only over the mark as a whole, not over descriptive or non-distinctive elements per se.

3.3 “Common to trade” / publici juris

The Respondent cited extensive third-party registrations and decisions recognising that common words, personal names, or dictionary terms — especially when widely used in trade — are weak marks. The Court’s analysis is consistent with these authorities and earlier Delhi High Court jurisprudence such as:

Vasundhara Jewellers (supra) – multiple “Vasundhara” marks weaken exclusivity;
People Interactive (supra) – widespread “shaadi” uses negate secondary meaning; and
Older authorities (e.g., British Vacuum Cleaner; Office Cleaning Services) cited in those judgments.

3.4 Other cited precedents

The Appellant relied on cases relating to:

likelihood of confusion and deceptive similarity (Cadila Health Care v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals; Bata v. Chawla Boot House; Amar Singh Chawal Wala; Kirorimal Kashiram);
use of marks as part of corporate names (B.K. Engineering; Laxmikant Patel; L’Oréal SA v. Ravi Gandhi; Montari);
prior user rights under Section 34 (Devans Modern Breweries/Radico Khaitan line of cases); and
well-known marks and trans-border reputation (ITC v. Philip Morris; Exxon Mobil).

The Court did not reject these principles in the abstract; rather, it held that on the facts, the Appellant failed to bring its case within those principles, primarily because:

“HAVELI” is generic/common and intrinsically weak;
the Appellant lacked a word mark in Class 43, and even in Class 30 it had only a device registration; and
evidence of reputation and exclusive association was inadequate, especially in the face of extensive third-party usage.

4. Court’s Legal Reasoning

4.1 No exclusive right in “HAVELI” for Class 43

The Court first examined the Appellant’s registration portfolio and noted:

No word mark “HAVELI” registered in Class 43 for restaurant services.
Only:
- a device mark featuring “HAVELI” in Class 30 (food products), and
- a word mark “HAVELI” in Class 16 (paper/stationery)
are presently registered, while numerous other “HAVELI”-formative applications in relevant classes (including Class 43) have been refused, opposed or abandoned.

Crucially, when the Registrar cited earlier “HAVELI”-containing marks in examination reports, the Appellant itself responded that its marks were phonetically, visually and structurally different from those cited marks. This prior stance undercut its present claim that any mark containing “HAVELI” — including “AMRITSAR HAVELI” — is deceptively similar to its own marks.

The Court therefore held:

the Appellant has not demonstrated exclusive ownership of the word “HAVELI” in relation to Class 43 services; and
registration of a device mark cannot be stretched into a monopoly over the word component alone, particularly where that word is itself non-distinctive.

4.2 “HAVELI” as generic and “common to trade” (publici juris)

The Court placed strong reliance on objective evidence from the Trade Marks Register, highlighting a long list of registrations where “HAVELI” forms part of marks across classes – especially Class 43 (e.g., “Dilli Haveli”, “Mandawa Haveli”, “Traditional Heritage Haveli”, “Haveli Inn Blu”, “Alsisar Haveli”, etc.).

From this, the Court drew several conclusions:

Generic/descriptive character: “HAVELI” is a dictionary word in Hindi, signifying a traditional mansion. In the context of restaurants and hospitality:
- it evokes a theme or style (traditional, heritage, rustic, Punjabi/Rajasthani, etc.);
- does not inherently distinguish the services of one trader from another; and
- is therefore descriptive/non-distinctive under Section 9(1)(a).
Common to trade/publici juris: The volume of third-party registrations and use shows that “HAVELI” is common to the trade for restaurants, hotels, guesthouses and allied services. A term used so widely in commerce cannot be appropriated by a single trader absent very strong evidence of secondary meaning.
Conduct of the Appellant: The Appellant did not challenge multiple Registrar orders:
- rejecting its own “HAVELI”-formative applications; or
- dismissing its oppositions to others’ “HAVELI” marks.
This inaction supported an inference that the Appellant itself was aware of the weakness of its position and that “HAVELI” was not exclusively associated with it.

Accordingly, the Court held that “HAVELI” is publici juris and common to trade, and the Appellant is not entitled to monopolise it.

4.3 No proof of secondary meaning or well-known status

The Appellant argued that “HAVELI” had, through long use since 2001, acquired distinctiveness and even well-known status. To support this, it produced:

cash memos allegedly showing use since 2001;
sales and promotional expenditure details between 2001–2002 and 2017–2018;
newspaper advertisements and cuttings; and
invoices for billboard advertisements.

The Registrar and the Court both found this evidence insufficient and weakly supported:

sales and expense details were on plain paper, uncertified by a Chartered Accountant;
newspaper cuttings carried hand-written dates and depicted a composite mark, not “HAVELI” as a standalone word mark for Class 43 services;
billboard invoices did not clearly link to use of “HAVELI” for restaurant services; and
overall, the material did not convincingly establish continuous, extensive, and exclusive use of “HAVELI” for restaurant services across markets.

In line with People Interactive and Cadila (Sugar Free), the Court reaffirmed that:

secondary meaning requires strong proof that the mark has ceased to be descriptive and has come to identify exclusively the plaintiff’s goods/services; and
widespread third-party usage and multiple independent registrations defeat claims of exclusivity and secondary meaning.

The Court thus rejected the contention that “HAVELI” had acquired such a distinct reputation that Respondent No. 2’s use of “AMRITSAR HAVELI”/“THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” would necessarily cause confusion or amount to free-riding on the Appellant’s goodwill.

4.4 Deceptive similarity: marks to be compared as a whole

Applying the anti-dissection rule and Section 17, the Court held that:

The comparison must be between:
- the Appellant’s device mark (Class 30) and word mark in Class 16; and
- the Respondent’s word marks “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” in Class 43,
as wholes, not by isolating “HAVELI”.
Once “HAVELI” is recognised as generic/common, the remaining distinctive element “AMRITSAR” (and “THE”) assumes significance in the composite marks of Respondent No. 2.

The Court also addressed the Appellant’s argument that “AMRITSAR” is merely geographic and cannot add distinctiveness:

The Registrar rightly held that not every city name is automatically a barred geographical indication for services. Unless it functions as an indication of geographical origin for those services in the minds of the public, it can be registered.
While cities are sometimes associated with certain food items, that association does not necessarily extend to all food services from that city.

Consequently:

“AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI” are inherently composite and distinctive as wholes;
the shared word “HAVELI” does not create a sufficient likelihood of confusion, given its generic character and the additional prefix “AMRITSAR”;
both visual and phonetic impressions differ once the marks are considered in their entirety.

4.5 Prior registry history and inconsistent conduct

The Court attached weight to the Appellant’s conduct before the Trade Marks Registry:

In response to examination reports citing earlier “HAVELI” marks, the Appellant argued that such marks were phonetically, visually and structurally distinct from its own marks.
It did not challenge adverse orders rejecting its own applications or dismissing its oppositions against third party “HAVELI” marks.

Having taken the position earlier that minor differences rendered various “HAVELI”-containing marks distinguishable, the Appellant could not now “blow hot and cold” and insist that the mere presence of “HAVELI” in Respondent No. 2’s marks rendered them deceptively similar. This inconsistency weakened its claim and supported the Registrar’s conclusions.

4.6 Evaluation of the Registrar’s Orders and Scope of Appeal

The Court emphasised that:

The Impugned Orders were reasoned, detailed and based on a thorough examination of the documentary evidence.
The Registrar correctly assessed the adequacy of evidence supporting the Appellant’s alleged use of “HAVELI” for restaurant services.
All submissions made by the Appellant at the hearing were duly recorded and considered.

Therefore, there was no procedural unfairness or misapplication of the Act that could justify interference in an appeal under Section 91. The Court expressly rejected the Appellant’s plea that it was denied reasonable opportunity of hearing or that the Registrar overlooked vital evidence.

5. Impact and Implications

5.1 For hospitality and “theme” branding

This judgment carries particular significance for restaurants, hotels, dhabas, and “heritage” or “theme” establishments that adopt evocative, descriptive Hindi/vernacular names such as “Haveli”, “Dhaba”, “Mahal”, “Heritage”, “Kothi”, etc. The key messages are:

Weak protection for generic/descriptive names: Traders who choose such descriptive terms as their primary brand element must expect a limited scope of protection and a higher tolerance for coexistence and confusion.
Focus on distinctive elements: Distinctive prefixes/suffixes, logos, get‑up, stylisation, and overall composite character assume primary importance. Attempting to enforce bare generic elements (“HAVELI”) is unlikely to succeed.
Evidence-heavy burden to prove secondary meaning: To elevate a generic term into a protectable badge of origin, owners must marshal strong, reliable, certified evidence of continuous, extensive and exclusive use, ideally across geographies, and also be able to show that competitors have stayed away from using the term.

5.2 For trade mark prosecution and opposition practice

Registry history matters: Unchallenged refusals and adverse opposition decisions can later be cited against an applicant/opponent to show that it accepted limitations on its rights, especially over non-distinctive terms.
Consistency in pleadings: Parties must maintain consistent positions. Arguing before the Registry that two “HAVELI” marks are distinguishable, and later arguing that any “HAVELI”-formative mark is deceptively similar, will undermine credibility and legal strength.
Volume of third-party registrations is probative: As in shaadi.com and Vasundhara, showing that the register is crowded with similar marks tends to defeat exclusivity claims and weaken oppositions based purely on a common word.

5.3 For composite and device mark strategy

The decision reaffirms that:

Device/label registrations are not word monopolies: Simply having a label with a prominent word component does not confer a right to prevent all use of that word by others, particularly if the word is descriptive or common.
Section 17 and anti-dissection are central: Brand owners should treat composite marks as a whole in both prosecution and enforcement and should not assume statutory exclusivity in individual descriptive components.

5.4 City names and geographical terms in service marks

The Court’s acceptance of “AMRITSAR” as a permissible part of a distinctive service mark — rather than automatically treating it as a geographical indication — is important. It suggests:

City names may be registered if they do not function as indications of origin of the services, but simply as suggestive or referential elements in a composite mark.
This nuanced approach leaves room for mark owners to use city names creatively, though conflicts with geographical indications (for goods) and misleading usage must still be avoided.

5.5 Litigation strategy and Section 91 appeals

For future appellants:

Section 91 appeals are not opportunities to re-argue the entire case unless there is a clear error of law, misappreciation of evidence, or procedural lapse.
Where the Registrar’s orders are well-reasoned, supported by evidence and consistent with statutory provisions, the High Court is unlikely to interfere.

IV. Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Generic, descriptive, suggestive and arbitrary marks

Generic terms describe the product or service itself (e.g., “Restaurant” for a restaurant, “Milk” for dairy products). These can never be monopolised as trade marks.
Descriptive terms describe a characteristic, quality, purpose, or feature (e.g., “Sweet”, “Sugared”, “Creamy”). They are generally unregistrable unless they acquire secondary meaning.
Suggestive marks allude to a quality but require some imagination to connect (e.g., “Netflix” for streaming content). These are inherently more protectable.
Arbitrary/fanciful marks are the strongest (e.g., “Apple” for computers, coined words). They enjoy broad protection.

“HAVELI”, in the hospitality context, is closer to the descriptive/generic category: it describes the style/theme or ambience of the premises.

2. Secondary meaning

A descriptive term acquires secondary meaning when:

in the minds of the public, it stops indicating the kind of goods/services, and
starts indicating the source — i.e., consumers see the term and immediately think of one particular trader.

To prove this, courts look at:

duration and continuity of use;
geographical spread;
advertising and promotional expenditure;
sales figures and market share;
consumer surveys (where available); and
absence (or suppression) of other traders’ use.

In this case, the Court found that the Appellant’s evidence fell short of this rigorous standard, especially against the backdrop of extensive third-party use of “HAVELI”.

3. Publici juris / common to trade

A term is publici juris or “common to trade” when:

it is widely used in an industry, often descriptively or generically;
many traders independently incorporate it into their marks; and
the register shows multiple coexisting registrations incorporating the term.

Such a term is treated as weak. Even if used by a particular trader for a long time, courts hesitate to grant broad injunctions preventing others from using it fairly and descriptively.

4. Anti-dissection rule and Section 17

Under the anti-dissection rule:

A composite mark (word + logo + device, etc.) is assessed in its entirety.
The law focuses on the overall commercial impression, not isolated components.

Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act codifies this principle:

Registration of a composite mark confers rights over the whole mark as registered.
It does not automatically grant separate proprietary rights over each component, especially where those components are descriptive or non-distinctive.

5. Section 9(1)(a) – absolute grounds for refusal

Section 9(1)(a) prohibits registration of marks:

which are devoid of any distinctive character;
i.e., marks that cannot distinguish the goods/services of one person from those of another.

“Descriptive” or “generic” marks normally fall foul of Section 9(1)(a), unless they are shown to have acquired a distinctive character by reason of use (Section 9(1) proviso).

6. Section 34 – prior user rights

Section 34 safeguards the rights of a prior user of a mark, even against a later registered proprietor. But to invoke it effectively, the prior user must show:

continuous and substantial prior use;
use in the relevant geographical territory and for the relevant goods/services; and
that the mark is distinctive of its goods/services.

Here, the Court found that:

the Appellant’s evidence did not convincingly establish continuous, distinctive prior use in Class 43; and
the generic nature of “HAVELI” limited the benefit that Section 34 could confer.

7. Section 91 – appeals from Registrar’s decisions

Section 91 allows aggrieved parties to appeal against certain orders of the Registrar. The High Court generally:

examines whether the Registrar has applied the law correctly and considered all relevant material; and
is slow to interfere with well-reasoned findings of fact unless they are perverse or unsupported by evidence.

In this case, the Court found that the Registrar:

gave adequate opportunity of hearing;
scrutinised the evidence carefully; and
applied the correct legal tests for distinctiveness, genericness, and deceptive similarity.

V. Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s judgment in Haveli Restaurant and Resorts Ltd. v. Registrar of Trademarks & Anr. reaffirms and clarifies several critical principles of Indian trade mark law:

No monopoly over generic hospitality terms: Words like “HAVELI”, with strong descriptive and cultural associations and extensive third-party usage, are generic/common to trade and cannot easily be monopolised, especially across all India and in Class 43.
Composite marks and Section 17: Registration of a device/label mark that includes a generic term does not yield exclusivity over that term alone. Enforcement must focus on the entire mark, consistent with the anti-dissection rule.
High threshold for secondary meaning: A trader seeking to convert a descriptive/generic term into an exclusive badge of origin must produce robust, reliable and certified evidence of long, widespread and near-exclusive use. Mere longevity or localised fame is not sufficient.
Registry conduct and consistency matter: Failure to challenge adverse registry orders and adopting inconsistent positions regarding similarity of marks will erode the credibility of later exclusivity claims.
Balanced approach to city names: As long as a city name does not operate as a misleading indication of origin for services, it can form part of a distinctive, registrable composite mark.
Deferential appellate review under Section 91: Well-reasoned and evidence-based orders of the Registrar will generally be upheld, absent clear legal or factual error.

On the specific facts, the Court held that the Appellant had not demonstrated an exclusive right in “HAVELI” for restaurant services, nor had it shown deceptive similarity between its marks and Respondent No. 2’s “AMRITSAR HAVELI” and “THE AMRITSAR HAVELI”. Accordingly, the oppositions failed and the registrations in favour of Respondent No. 2 were sustained.

This judgment will likely serve as a leading authority in future disputes involving generic or descriptive vernacular terms in the hospitality industry and beyond, and will nudge brand owners toward selecting and investing in truly distinctive marks rather than attempting to monopolise evocative but generic expressions.