Introduction
Factual Background
Yatra Online Limited asserted its status as the registered proprietor of multiple trade marks such as 'YATRA.COM', 'YATRA WITH DEVICE', 'YATRA FREIGHT', and related device marks. The plaintiff highlighted the adoption of ‘YATRA’ as its trade name in 2005 and its business operations commencing in 2006 through the website www.yatra.com and associated platforms. The brand ‘YATRA’ was presented as a dominant market player in online travel bookings and related services, boasting a large customer base and multi-channel presence. In fiscal year 2024-2025, the plaintiff acquired Globe All India Services Limited, further solidifying its corporate clientele to over 1,200 clients.
Upon discovering the defendant’s intent to launch www.bookmyyatra.com, the plaintiff observed Mach Conferences and Events Limited attempting to register and use confusingly similar marks for identical travel-related services. This included trade mark applications for ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’, domain registration, and evidence from an Analyst/Investor meeting transcript. The plaintiff considered the defendant’s actions a deliberate attempt to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill established by Yatra’s longstanding use.
Conversely, the defendant argued that ‘YATRA’ is a generic, descriptive word meaning ‘journey’ in Hindi, and is widely used in the travel industry by various businesses. The defendant claimed no exclusive rights accrue to the plaintiff, especially in Class 39, as the Registrar had issued device mark registrations with a disclaimer expressly denying exclusivity over the word ‘YATRA’.
Procedural Background
The plaintiff filed a suit seeking injunction against the defendant from using the marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’, and requested delivery of the defendant’s domain name. The plaintiff further sought withdrawal of the defendant’s trade mark applications and damages. By an ex-parte interim order dated 09.12.2024, the defendant was restrained from using the impugned marks pending further hearing. The defendant filed a detailed reply opposing interim relief, followed by a rejoinder from the plaintiff. The application was finally heard and reserved for order on 27.07.2025.
During arguments, the plaintiff emphasized its statutory and common law rights, asserting ‘YATRA’ as having acquired a secondary meaning due to long and exclusive market use. The defendant countered, highlighting multiple instances of third-party use, registration refusals, disclaimers, and the generic nature of 'YATRA' and '.com', arguing that no confusion or exclusive rights could be claimed.
Core Dispute
The crux of the dispute rested on whether the plaintiff could claim exclusive statutory and common law rights over the mark ‘YATRA’, considering its registration status, disclaimers, evidence of goodwill, and the prevailing use of the word within the industry. The court was to decide the validity and enforceability of trade marks containing generic elements, the implications of disclaimers on exclusivity, and whether the defendant’s marks ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’ constituted infringement, passing off, or justified remedial injunction.
Discussion on Judgments – Complete Citations and Context
Both parties heavily relied on precedent to support their positions. The plaintiff’s counsel cited the following authorities:
-
Registrar of Trade Marks v. Ashok Chandra Rakhit Limited, 1955 SCC OnLine SC 12 (regarding the effect of disclaimers).
-
Pidilite Industries Limited v. Riya Chemy, 2022 SCC OnLine Bom 5077 (impact of disclaimers and common law rights).
-
Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel & Others, (2006) 8 SCC 726 (common law rights and secondary meaning).
-
Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta, 1962 SCC OnLine SC 13; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Limited, 1959 SCC OnLine SC 11 (similarity and confusion).
-
Sky Enterprise Private Ltd. v. Abaad Masala & Co., 2020 SCC OnLine Bom 750; British School Society v. Sanjay Gandhi Educational Society and Another, 2022 SCC OnLine Del 1165; British School Society v. British International School, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 5210.
-
Frank Reddaway & Co. Ltd. v. Banham & Co. Ltd., AC 1999; Godfrey Philips India Ltd. v. Girnar Food & Bevarages (P) Ltd., (2004) 5 SCC 257 (secondary meaning and household reputation).
-
K.R. Chinna Krishna Chettiar v. Shri Ambal & Co., (1969) 2 SCC 131; Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. and Co., Mysore, (1972) 1 SCC 618; Mex Switchgears Pvt. Ltd. v. Omex Cables Industries, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 10412; Pidilite Industries Ltd. v. S.M. Associates, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 143 (deceptive similarity).
-
Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65 (honest business practices).
-
Bal Pharma Ltd. v. Centaur Laboratories Pvt. Ltd., 2001 SCC OnLine Bom 1176; S. Syed Mohideen v. P. Sulochana Bai, (2016) 2 SCC 683 (bad faith/adoption).
-
M/s Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Shailesh Gupta, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 239; Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Siffynet Solutions (P) Ltd., (2004) 6 SCC 145; Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co., (1969) 2 SCC 727; Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73; Century Traders v. Roshan Lal Duggar & Co., 1977 SCC OnLine Del 50 (domain name and passing off).
-
M/s. Jawahar Engineering Co. v. M/s. Jawahar Engineers Pvt. Ltd., 1983 SCC OnLine Del 41; Intel Corporation v. Harpreet Singh, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 7264; Mars Inc. v. Kumar Krishna Mukerjee, 2002 SCC OnLine Del 1218 (quia timet injunctions).
-
National Bell Co. v. Metal Goods Mfg. Co. (P) Ltd., (1970) 3 SCC 665; Pankaj Goel v. Dabur India Ltd., 2008 SCC OnLine Del 1744; Glaxosmithkline Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Horizon Bioceuticals Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 2065; Rajesh Chugh v. Chhavi Poplai, 2019 SCC OnLine Del 6717; Goenka Institute v. Anjani Kumar, 2009 SCC OnLine Del 1691; Dr. Reddy's Labs Ltd. v. Reddy Pharmaceuticals Ltd., 2004 SCC OnLine Del 668; Lupin Limited v. Eris Lifesciences Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Bom 6807; Shree Nath Heritage Liquor Pvt. Ltd. v. Allied Blender & Distiller Pvt. Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10164 (third-party use).
The defendant’s counsel referenced:
-
Parakh Vanijya Pvt. Ltd. v. Baroma Agro Product, 2018 SCC OnLine SC 686 (effect of disclaimers).
-
Nilkamal Crates & Containers v. Ms. Reena Rajpal, 2023:DHC:8087 (whole mark policy under Section 17 of Trade Marks Act).
-
BigTree Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. v. Brain Seek Sportainment Pvt. Ltd., 2017:DHC:7767; People Interactive (India) Pvt. Ltd. v. Vivek Pahwa, 2016 SCC Online Bom 7351; Juice Generation Inc. v. GS Enters LLC, 2015 U.S App. LEXIS 12456; Office Cleaning Services LD. V. Westminster Window and General Cleaners LD., (1946) 63 RPC 39; Radio Taxicabs (London) Ltd. v. Owner Driver Radio Taxi Services Ltd., RPC 351.
-
Kamdhenu Ltd. v. Registrar of Trade Marks, 2023 SCC Online Del 3913; J.R Kapoor v. Micronix India, 1994 Supp (3) SCC 215; Pernod Ricard India Pvt. Ltd. v. A.B Sugars Limited, 2023 SCC OnLine Del 6966; PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. EZY Services, 2021 SCC OnLine Del 2635; Ayushakti Ayurved Pvt. Ltd. v. Hindustan Lever Limited, 2003 SCC OnLine Bom 404; Vijay Kumar Ahuja v. Lalita Ahuja, 2001 SCC OnLine Del 1215.
The context for these precedents included the market effect of disclaimers, what constitutes generic and descriptive marks, standards for secondary meaning, the principle of anti-dissection and dominant marks, and the prerequisites for injunctive relief.
Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Tejas Karia provided a detailed rationale examining whether the plaintiff’s marks had acquired distinctiveness or secondary meaning. The court recognized the plaintiff's longstanding market use and device mark registrations but underscored that the Registrar of Trade Marks expressly issued a disclaimer, denying exclusive rights over ‘YATRA’.
It was reasoned that ‘YATRA’, being a synonym for ‘travel’ in Hindi, is a generic and descriptive term commonly employed in the travel industry. The market was replete with various businesses and registered marks containing ‘YATRA’, undermining the plaintiff’s claim for exclusivity or secondary meaning. The court scrutinized evidence of market adoption, business operations, reputational claims, and differences in marks, emphasizing that generic and descriptive marks, even with significant market reputation, cannot be monopolized absent distinctiveness.
Further, the court adopted the whole mark policy, stating that the defendant’s marks 'BookMyYatra' and 'BookMyYatra.com', viewed in their entirety and with their prefixes, were distinguishable from the plaintiff’s device marks and did not create likelihood of confusion. The use of ‘BookMy’ was deemed to be a common prefix in online businesses (e.g., BookMyShow, BookMyTrip), and '.com' was held to be generic and incapable of conferring distinctiveness.
The court found no prima facie case of infringement, deception, or passing off, nor did the plaintiff satisfy requirements for declaring ‘YATRA’ a well-known mark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act or Rule 124 of the Trade Mark Rules.
Final Decision
Based on the above reasoning, the court dismissed the application for interim injunction. No permanent relief was granted. The ex-parte restraint against the defendant using 'BookMyYatra' and 'BookMyYatra.com' or the domain name www.bookmyyatra.com was vacated, finding no prima facie case for infringement or passing off. The court held that generic and descriptive marks such as 'YATRA' and '.com', absent secondary meaning, do not qualify for legal protection from third-party use in the context of the travel services industry.
Law Settled in This Case
The judgment clarified that generic or descriptive words—especially those commonly used in the relevant industry—cannot be monopolized or protected as trade marks in the absence of distinctiveness or secondary meaning. Disclaimers attached to device mark registrations restrict the proprietor from claiming exclusivity over the disclaimed element. Moreover, the presence of widespread industry use and registration of similar marks by different proprietors precludes the grant of exclusivity or injunctive relief. When marks are to be compared, courts must examine them as wholes, not merely by their constituent parts, and generic website suffixes like '.com' have no distinctiveness.
Case Details
Case Title: Yatra Online Limited Vs Mach Conferences and Events Limited
Date of Order: August 22, 2025
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1099/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7167
Name of Court: High Court of Delhi
Name of Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Tejas Karia
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 in Law Journal
-
Trademark Protection for Generic Terms: An In-depth Analysis of Yatra Online Limited vs Mach Conferences and Events Limited
-
Can ‘YATRA’ Be Monopolized? Legal Perspectives from Delhi High Court’s 2025 Judgment
-
Device Mark Disclaimers and Their Market Consequences: Lessons from BookMyYatra Litigation
-
Passing Off and Secondary Meaning in India’s Travel Industry: A Study of Recent Trademark Litigation
-
The Legal Limits of Trademark Exclusivity for Descriptive Words in Online Travel Services
