The entire case revolves around a trademark dispute, where Yatra Online Limited, a popular travel portal, sued Mach Conferences and Events for allegedly infringing on its rights. The claim was that the defendant's trademarks, namely BOOKMYYATRA and BOOKMYYATRA.COM, were too similar to the plaintiff's brands, including YATRA.COM, which could mislead customers. The plaintiff raised issues of trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition, and dilution of its brand. Initially, it succeeded in obtaining an ex parte interim injunction, which prevented the defendant from using these names, but on August 22, 2025, the court overturned this injunction after hearing both sides. The main issue is whether the word "Yatra" can be considered a unique element of a travel brand, given that it is so commonly used in Hindi.
Yatra Online Limited claimed that it has full rights to the word "Yatra," which it has n using since 2006 and has registered in various forms, such as YATRA.COM, YATRA with a logo, or YATRA FREIGHT, where "Yatra" is the most important part. They stated that their brand is unique and well-known, and after almost twenty years of continuous use, with extensive promotion and advertising, it has acquired a secondary meaning, meaning people associate it only with them. They emphasized that the defendant, by offering the same travel booking services, creates a risk of confusion, false association, and damage to their reputation. They also accused the defendant of acting in bad faith to capitalize on their success. Regarding the principle of not dissecting a trademark, the plaintiff argued that it does not prevent "Yatra" from being recognized as a key element, and these principles complement each other. Even if some registrations include a disclaimer that they do not have exclusive rights to "Yatra," they believe that this does not affect how people perceive the brand. Finally, they argued that the situation is in their favor because the defendant has not yet launched its business under these names and could simply choose a different name without any losses.
Mach Conferences and Events countered that "Yatra" is a common Hindi word for "journey" or "pilgrimage," perfectly describing travel services, and therefore no one should monopolize it. They argued that the plaintiff hadn't shown that people associate the word solely with them, and its original meaning hasn't disappeared. They pointed out numerous other companies in the industry that use "Yatra" in their names, demonstrating that the plaintiff is unfairly trying to claim something generic. They emphasized that the plaintiff's registrations are for composite marks or those with graphics, not just the word itself, and always with a disclaimer of exclusivity, which cannot be ignored later. They also accused the plaintiff of registering 69 domains, most of which are parked, and of filing trademarks in odd categories, suggesting an attempt to block competition rather than engage in genuine business. Finally, they complained about the losses caused by the preliminary injunction, which delayed the launch of their company.
In its ruling, the court stated that common or descriptive words are not suitable as trademarks because they do not indicate a specific manufacturer, and their appropriation would harm everyone and stifle competition. The plaintiff failed to prove that many customers associate "Yatra" solely with him or that the word has lost its basic meaning, and the fact that so many companies use similar names weakens these claims. The court reminded that the plaintiff's registrations contain binding disclaimers that clearly state the lack of exclusivity for "Yatra" – this is not a trivial matter, but a firm limitation. It also rejected the idea that "Yatra" is a widely known brand, as there is no official confirmation of this. Comparing the whole, the court found that BOOKMYYATRA and BOOKMYYATRA.COM differ from the plaintiff's trademarks due to the "BookMy" prefix, which is typical for online reservations, so there is no risk of confusion. Ultimately, the court found no grounds for the claims and overturned the injunction. Looking at this, the ruling shows that it is not possible to appropriate words rooted in culture or ordinary terms, and even prolonged use of something descriptive does not allow for a monopoly at the expense of others; however, instead of immediately deciding at an early stage that there is no secondary meaning, the court could have given the plaintiff a chance to present evidence before the final verdict.
Fill out the form and we will get back to you within the next … with a preliminary quote.
