Brief Introductory Head Note Summary of case
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed two appeals that challenged the registration of the trade‑mark “HAVELI” in Class 43 (food services). The appellant claimed exclusive rights over the word “HAVELI”, arguing that it had acquired a secondary meaning through long use. The respondents, who had applied to register “HAVELI” for their own food‑service businesses, contended that the word is generic and therefore cannot be monopolised. The Court examined the evidence, the law on generic marks, and the requirement of secondary meaning, and concluded that “HAVELI” remains a common descriptive term and that the appellant had not shown sufficient distinctiveness to justify exclusivity. The judgment also touched upon the use of the word “shaadi” in a similar context, reinforcing the principle that widely used common words cannot be owned by a single trader.
The Delhi High Court recently dismissed two appeals that challenged the registration of the trade‑mark “HAVELI” in Class 43 (food services). The appellant claimed exclusive rights over the word “HAVELI”, arguing that it had acquired a secondary meaning through long use. The respondents, who had applied to register “HAVELI” for their own food‑service businesses, contended that the word is generic and therefore cannot be monopolised. The Court examined the evidence, the law on generic marks, and the requirement of secondary meaning, and concluded that “HAVELI” remains a common descriptive term and that the appellant had not shown sufficient distinctiveness to justify exclusivity. The judgment also touched upon the use of the word “shaadi” in a similar context, reinforcing the principle that widely used common words cannot be owned by a single trader.
Factual Background
The dispute centres on the trade‑mark “HAVELI”. The appellant, a food‑service provider, asserted that it had been using the mark since 2001 and that the mark had become distinctive of its business. The respondents filed applications to register “HAVELI” for their own food‑service ventures. The appellant opposed these applications, claiming that the respondents’ use would cause confusion and dilute its reputation. The Trade Marks Registry allowed the respondents’ applications, leading the appellant to file appeals before the High Court.
The dispute centres on the trade‑mark “HAVELI”. The appellant, a food‑service provider, asserted that it had been using the mark since 2001 and that the mark had become distinctive of its business. The respondents filed applications to register “HAVELI” for their own food‑service ventures. The appellant opposed these applications, claiming that the respondents’ use would cause confusion and dilute its reputation. The Trade Marks Registry allowed the respondents’ applications, leading the appellant to file appeals before the High Court.
Procedural Detail
The appellant filed two separate appeals, numbered C.A.(COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 and 58/2024, challenging the orders of the Registrar of Trade Marks that permitted the registration of “HAVELI” in favour of the respondents. The High Court heard the appeals together, considered the pleadings, the evidence submitted by both sides, and the arguments advanced by senior counsel. The Court also examined the earlier order of the Registrar, which had rejected the appellant’s opposition on the ground that “HAVELI” is a generic term.
The appellant filed two separate appeals, numbered C.A.(COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 and 58/2024, challenging the orders of the Registrar of Trade Marks that permitted the registration of “HAVELI” in favour of the respondents. The High Court heard the appeals together, considered the pleadings, the evidence submitted by both sides, and the arguments advanced by senior counsel. The Court also examined the earlier order of the Registrar, which had rejected the appellant’s opposition on the ground that “HAVELI” is a generic term.
Core Dispute
The central issue before the Court was whether the word “HAVELI” is a generic or descriptive term that cannot be appropriated as a trade‑mark, and whether the appellant had succeeded in proving that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning that would give it exclusive rights. A subsidiary question related to the use of the word “shaadi” in other trademark disputes, which the Court referenced to illustrate the broader principle that common words remain free for all to use.
The central issue before the Court was whether the word “HAVELI” is a generic or descriptive term that cannot be appropriated as a trade‑mark, and whether the appellant had succeeded in proving that the mark had acquired a secondary meaning that would give it exclusive rights. A subsidiary question related to the use of the word “shaadi” in other trademark disputes, which the Court referenced to illustrate the broader principle that common words remain free for all to use.
Detailed Reasoning and Discussion by Court
The Court began by noting that a word that is commonly used in trade cannot be monopolised, even if a trader has used it for a long time. The judgment cited the decision of Simons J in the “shaadi” case, where it was held that a trader who adopts a common word must accept the risk of others using similar words, provided the differences are small enough to avoid confusion. The Court observed that the appellant had produced a long list of rival marks that incorporate the word “shaadi”, showing that the term is widely used in the market. This, the Court said, demonstrated that the appellant could not claim exclusivity over such a common expression.
The Court began by noting that a word that is commonly used in trade cannot be monopolised, even if a trader has used it for a long time. The judgment cited the decision of Simons J in the “shaadi” case, where it was held that a trader who adopts a common word must accept the risk of others using similar words, provided the differences are small enough to avoid confusion. The Court observed that the appellant had produced a long list of rival marks that incorporate the word “shaadi”, showing that the term is widely used in the market. This, the Court said, demonstrated that the appellant could not claim exclusivity over such a common expression.
Turning to “HAVELI”, the Court examined the evidence presented by the appellant. The appellant relied on sales figures, promotional expenses, newspaper cuttings, and invoices to prove long and continuous use. However, the Court found that these documents were either on plain paper, lacked certification by a chartered accountant, or did not clearly indicate that the mark “HAVELI” was used in connection with food services. The Court referred to the decision in Cadila Healthcare Ltd. v. Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing Federation Ltd. (2008) where the Delhi High Court explained that mere sales data or promotional activities are insufficient to establish secondary meaning. The Court also cited Jain Shikanji Private Ltd. v. Satish Kumar Jain (2023) to illustrate that while a combination of common words can become distinctive, a single common word like “HAVELI” remains generic.
The Court further discussed the concept of secondary meaning, quoting from People Interactive (India) Private Ltd. v. Vivek Pahwa (2016). It explained that for a term to acquire secondary meaning, the primary meaning must be lost and the public must associate the term exclusively with the claimant’s goods or services. In the present case, the Court found no evidence that the public identified “HAVELI” solely with the appellant’s food services. On the contrary, the presence of numerous other businesses using “HAVELI” in their names indicated that the term retained its ordinary meaning.
The judgment also addressed the appellant’s argument that the respondents were acting dishonestly by using “HAVELI” prominently. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the respondents’ use of the word in a descriptive manner did not amount to passing off, especially when the word is generic. The Court referenced Indian Hotels Company Ltd. v. Jiva Institute of Vedic Science & Culture (2008) and other authorities to underscore that a generic term cannot be protected merely because a party has used it extensively.
Finally, the Court concluded that the Registrar had correctly applied the law. The impugned orders were well‑reasoned, and there was no infirmity that required interference. The appeals were therefore dismissed.
Decision
The High Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the registration of “HAVELI” in favour of the respondents, and affirmed that the appellant does not hold exclusive rights over the word “HAVELI” as it is generic and has not acquired secondary meaning.
The High Court dismissed both appeals, upheld the registration of “HAVELI” in favour of the respondents, and affirmed that the appellant does not hold exclusive rights over the word “HAVELI” as it is generic and has not acquired secondary meaning.
Concluding Note
This judgment reinforces the well‑settled principle that common descriptive words cannot be monopolised through trademark registration, even if a trader has used them for many years. The Court’s emphasis on the need for clear evidence of secondary meaning highlights the high threshold that claimants must meet when seeking protection for generic terms. The decision also serves as a reminder that extensive use alone does not transform a generic word into a distinctive brand.
This judgment reinforces the well‑settled principle that common descriptive words cannot be monopolised through trademark registration, even if a trader has used them for many years. The Court’s emphasis on the need for clear evidence of secondary meaning highlights the high threshold that claimants must meet when seeking protection for generic terms. The decision also serves as a reminder that extensive use alone does not transform a generic word into a distinctive brand.
Case Title: Haveli Restaurant And Resorts Limited Vs Registrar Of Trademarks
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 & 58/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2711
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Tejas Karia, J.
Order Date: 24 November 2025
Case Number: C.A.(COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 & 58/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:2711
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Hon'ble Judge: Tejas Karia, J.
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
Suggested Titles for Publication
- “Generic Words and the Limits of Trademark Protection: An Analysis of the HAVELI Case”
- “From Shaadi to Haveli – How Common Terms Defy Exclusive Rights in Indian Trademark Law”
- “Secondary Meaning in the Age of Generic Marks: Lessons from the Delhi High Court’s HAVELI Judgment”
- “Balancing Fair Competition and Brand Claims: The Court’s Rationale in the HAVELI Trademark Appeals”
- “When Long Use Is Not Enough: The Delhi High Court’s Stance on Generic Terms and Trade Mark Registration”
- =======
- In a landmark decision dated 24 November 2025, the High Court of Delhi, presided over by Hon’ble Justice Tejas Karia, dismissed the appeals filed in C.A.(COMM.IPD‑TM) 57/2024 & 58/2024 (the “Haveli” trademark case). The appellants, who claimed exclusive rights over the word “HAVELI” for food‑service businesses, argued that the term had acquired a secondary meaning through long use. The respondents, seeking to register “HAVELI” for their own eateries, contended that the word is generic and therefore not protectable. After examining the evidence, the Court held that “HAVELI” remains a common descriptive term and that the appellants had not shown sufficient distinctiveness to justify exclusivity, thereby upholding the Registrar’s orders and allowing the respondents’ registrations to stand.The judgment reiterated that generic words cannot be monopolised merely because a trader has used them for many years, and that proof of secondary meaning requires clear public association with the claimant’s goods or services—something the appellants failed to demonstrate. The decision is expected to influence future trademark disputes involving everyday words and the high bar for establishing distinctiveness.Disclaimer:This is for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice as it may contain human errors in perception and presentation: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent & Trademark Attorney), High Court of Delhi]
