The case between Yatra Online Limited and Mach Conferences and Events Limited came before the Court on allegations of trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, and unfair competition. Yatra, a well-known online travel company established in 2006, claimed exclusive rights over its marks including ‘YATRA’, ‘YATRA.COM’, and related device marks. The dispute arose when the Defendant prepared to launch a travel portal under the name ‘BookMyYatra’ and applied for trademarks such as ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’, which Yatra argued were deceptively similar to its own brand.

Yatra presented that it had acquired substantial goodwill and reputation over nearly two decades, serving millions of customers and registering several domain names incorporating the word ‘YATRA’. It argued that the Defendant’s adoption of ‘BookMyYatra’ was dishonest and intended to ride on Yatra’s established reputation. The Plaintiff further relied on its long-standing usage, brand recognition, and legal precedents to assert that the Defendant’s actions amounted to infringement and unfair competition. It contended that the similarity in marks would mislead consumers into believing that both businesses were connected, causing irreparable harm to its goodwill.

The Defendant, however, opposed these claims, arguing that the word ‘YATRA’ is a common Hindi term meaning “journey” and has been widely used by several travel operators across India and abroad for decades. It contended that Yatra could not monopolize a generic and descriptive word. The Defendant also highlighted that the Plaintiff’s registrations for certain marks carried disclaimers specifically denying exclusive rights over the word ‘YATRA’. It further argued that its mark, when viewed as a whole—‘BookMyYatra’—was distinct and could not cause confusion with ‘YATRA’ or ‘YATRA.COM’. Additionally, it pointed out that Yatra itself had abandoned several domain names and was attempting to unfairly block competition in the industry.

The Court carefully analyzed whether the Plaintiff could claim exclusivity over the word ‘YATRA’. It observed that while Yatra had developed a strong brand presence, the term ‘YATRA’ is inherently generic and descriptive of travel, which cannot be monopolized under trademark law. The Court emphasized that for a descriptive term to acquire secondary meaning, its primary meaning must be lost to the public and become solely associated with a single source. In this case, the Court found no evidence that ‘YATRA’ had acquired such exclusive distinctiveness. The disclaimer in the Plaintiff’s registrations further weakened its claim.

The Court also noted that when viewed as a whole, the Defendant’s marks ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’ were sufficiently distinguishable from the Plaintiff’s device marks and word marks. The use of the prefix “BookMy” created a distinct impression, and reliance on “.com” provided no exclusivity since it is a generic top-level domain. Citing established precedents, the Court concluded that the Plaintiff could not prevent others from using the word ‘YATRA’ in relation to travel services, especially as numerous businesses already use the term legitimately.

After weighing the arguments, the Court held that no prima facie case was established by Yatra for continuing the interim injunction. The Plaintiff’s request for restraining the Defendant from using ‘BookMyYatra’ or its related domain names was dismissed.

This case highlights the crucial principle that generic and descriptive words, especially those linked to the nature of a service, cannot be monopolized under trademark law. While Yatra remains a leading player in the travel sector, it cannot claim exclusivity over the word ‘YATRA’, which is widely understood as “journey” and commonly used in the travel industry. The decision reinforces the balance between protecting established brands and ensuring fair competition by preventing monopolization of everyday language.