Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction to Yatra | Holds ‘Yatra’ is Generic Descriptive of Travel, No Monopoly Over Common Word Under Trade Marks Act
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Delhi Single Bench of Justice Tejas Karia held that the expression “Yatra” is a generic and descriptive word in relation to travel and tour services and therefore cannot be monopolized. The Court dismissed the application seeking an interim injunction against the use of the marks “BookMyYatra” and “BookMyYatra.com” by the defendant company. It directed that no prima facie case of infringement or passing off had been established, thereby vacating the earlier ad-interim injunction previously granted.
The dispute arose out of a commercial suit initiated by the plaintiff, a leading travel services company operating under the well-known online platform “yatra.com.” The plaintiff asserted that it had adopted the trademark “YATRA” in 2005 and had since become one of India’s largest online travel booking portals, offering services including domestic and international air ticketing, hotel bookings, rail and bus reservations, holiday packages, corporate travel, and ancillary travel services. The plaintiff also claimed to be the registered proprietor of various marks such as “YATRA.COM,” “YATRA WITH DEVICE,” and “YATRA FREIGHT.”
According to the plaintiff, the “YATRA” brand had acquired immense goodwill and secondary significance due to long, continuous, and exclusive use for nearly two decades. It claimed recognition across India through its multi-channel platforms, extensive consumer base of nearly 15 million customers, acquisition of other travel businesses, and consistent advertising and promotional activities. The plaintiff further relied on several awards conferred by governmental and private bodies as evidence of the brand’s stature.
The plaintiff alleged that in October 2024 it discovered, through a transcript published on the Bombay Stock Exchange website, that the defendant company intended to launch a consumer-facing portal under the mark “BookMyYatra.” Subsequent searches revealed the existence of a website titled “bookmyyatra.com” (under construction) prominently featuring the defendant’s corporate name “Mach Conferences and Events Limited.” The plaintiff also discovered trademark applications filed by the defendant for “BookMyYatra” and “BookMyYatra.com” across Classes 9, 39, and 42.
It was alleged that these applications covered identical services such as travel reservations, consultancy, and arrangements, thereby encroaching upon the plaintiff’s established field of operations. The plaintiff promptly filed oppositions to these applications, arguing that the marks were deceptively similar to its own and amounted to bad-faith adoption calculated to exploit its goodwill.
The plaintiff’s case emphasized that the defendant’s actions constituted infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, and unfair competition. It contended that the defendant deliberately subsumed its established mark “YATRA” within the proposed mark “BookMyYatra,” creating a high likelihood of consumer confusion.
The defendant, in response, contended that the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over the term “Yatra.” It argued that “Yatra” was a generic and descriptive term in Hindi meaning “travel,” widely used across India by numerous travel operators, both domestically and internationally. The defendant produced evidence showing extensive third-party use of the expression “Yatra” in the trade and maintained that the Registrar of Trademarks had repeatedly refused to grant the plaintiff exclusive rights over the word.
The defendant further alleged that the plaintiff was engaging in domain-name squatting by registering multiple inactive domain names merely to prevent competition. It accused the plaintiff of attempting to monopolize a commonly used descriptive expression to unfairly stifle legitimate market entry.
On merits, the defendant submitted that its proposed mark “BookMyYatra” was an invented expression when considered as a whole, combining the commonly used prefix “BookMy” (similar to “BookMyShow,” “BookMyTrip,” etc.) with the word “Yatra.” It argued that there was no visual, phonetic, or conceptual similarity sufficient to cause confusion with the plaintiff’s marks. The defendant also stressed that its established business lay in the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences, and Exhibitions (MICE) sector, and its diversification into online travel services was legitimate.
Both parties advanced extensive arguments supported by case law. The plaintiff relied on precedents recognizing common law rights through long use and distinctiveness, while the defendant emphasized the generic nature of “Yatra,” the statutory impact of disclaimers, and judicial recognition of the need to consider marks as a whole under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice Tejas Karia recorded detailed findings on the nature of the expression “Yatra” and the comparative assessment of the competing marks. The Court observed: “Admittedly, the word ‘YATRA’ is a synonym for travel in Hindi. The Plaintiff cannot claim monopoly on the Mark ‘YATRA’ as the same is generic, commonly descriptive for the service of travel and tourism. When the Plaintiff has adopted words in common use for its own Trade Name / Corporate Name, it runs the risk of the same Mark being used by others.”
On the plaintiff’s claim of secondary meaning, the Court stated: “The word ‘YATRA’ cannot be said to have acquired a secondary meaning. For acquiring a secondary meaning, the primary meaning of the said expression has to be lost and left behind. For ‘YATRA’ to acquire a secondary meaning and to be associated exclusively with the Plaintiff, it has to be explained the primary meaning of the word ‘YATRA’, which has said to have been lost.”
Regarding the role of disclaimers imposed by the Registrar of Trade Marks, the Court observed: “The fact that ‘YATRA’ is a generic and descriptive word is also evident from the disclaimer of the learned Registrar of Trade Marks while granting the Device Marks of the Plaintiff. If the disclaimed word is generic in nature, the prolonged use of the same cannot confer the Plaintiff with the right to claim passing off.”
The Court further held: “The Plaintiff’s registered marks are Device Marks and not Word Marks. Hence, no infringement can be brought merely because of the use of the word ‘YATRA’ by the Defendant as ‘YATRA’ is a generic and a descriptive word.”
On the distinctiveness of the defendant’s marks, the Court recorded: “When the Defendant’s Trade Mark is viewed as a whole, the same is distinguishable by the prefix ‘BookMy.’ The Word Marks ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’ are distinctive with the use of prefix before the word ‘YATRA.’”
The Court also noted prior judicial treatment of the “BookMy” prefix: “This Court in case of BigTree Entertainment … has held that the words ‘BOOKMY’ are descriptive in nature and the trade mark ‘BOOKMYSHOW’ had not acquired a distinctive meaning for grant of injunction. Hence, the Defendant’s Marks ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’ do not violate any Trade Mark in ‘BOOKMY’ or ‘YATRA’ disjunctively or collectively as a whole.”
Finally, on the plaintiff’s reliance on “Yatra.com,” the Court concluded: “It is also settled law that ‘.com’ is a Top Level Domain (TLD) and is entirely generic and cannot have any distinctiveness at all. As ‘YATRA’ and ‘.com’ both are generic and commonly descriptive, ‘YATRA.COM’ also is generic and cannot be protected under common law of passing off.”
The Court issued clear directions on the matter. It held: “Accordingly, no prima facie case is made out for granting the interim injunction against the Defendant restraining from using the Marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ / ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ and the domain name / website, www.bookmyyatra.com. As a result, the present Application is dismissed.”
This directive vacated the ex-parte ad-interim injunction granted on 9 December 2024, thereby permitting the defendant to proceed with the use of “BookMyYatra” and its domain name. The Court effectively ruled that the plaintiff could not prevent such use in light of the descriptive nature of the term “Yatra” and the absence of exclusivity under trademark law.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Plaintiff: Mr. Pravin Anand, Ms. Jaya Negi & Ms. Yashi Agarwal, Advocates
For the Defendant: Mr. Saurabh Prakash, Mr. Utsav Jain & Mr. Anant Aditya Patro, Advocates
Case Title: Yatra Online Limited v. Mach Conferences and Events Limited
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:7167
Case Number: CS(COMM) 1099/2024
Bench: Justice Tejas Karia
