Yatra Trademark Infringement and Passing Off Claims The plaintiff, Yatra Online Limited, has been operating since 2006 and owns multiple registrations containing the word \u2018YATRA\u2019 including for its domain name yatra.com. It approached the Court alleging that the defendant, Mach Conferences and Events Limited, had adopted the mark \u2018BOOKMYYATRA\u2019 and the domain bookmyyatra.com, amounting to trademark infringement and passing off.
\nThe defendant had filed applications to register \u2018BOOKMYYATRA\u2019 and \u2018BOOKMYYATRA.COM\u2019 for travel-related services. The plaintiff opposed these and simultaneously sought an interim injunction from the Court to restrain the defendant\u2019s use of the mark and domain.<\/p>\n
The Court stated that \u2018YATRA\u2019 is a word of Indian origin meaning \u201cjourney\u201d or \u201ctravel\u201d and is directly descriptive of travel-related services. According to the Court, registration alone does not confer monopoly over descriptive words unless secondary meaning is proven. The Court said that the plaintiff had not shown sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness, such as consumer surveys or market studies.<\/p>\n
The Court observed that the disclaimer of exclusive rights to the word \u2018YATRA\u2019 in the plaintiff\u2019s registrations weakens the claim for exclusive use. As per the Court, even in passing off actions, a descriptive mark must be shown to have acquired distinctiveness, which was not established.<\/p>\n
With respect to similarity, the Court stated that while both marks include the word \u2018YATRA\u2019, the plaintiff had no exclusive right to it. The Court further said that there was no compelling evidence of actual confusion. It also found that the composite mark \u2018BOOKMYYATRA\u2019 was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff\u2019s branding in a legal sense.<\/p>\n
The Court therefore concluded that no prima facie case of infringement or passing off was made out to justify an interim injunction.<\/p>\n
The Delhi High Court declined to grant an interim injunction against the defendant. It held that the plaintiff failed to establish distinctiveness or secondary meaning in the word \u2018YATRA\u2019 and had not demonstrated deception or confusion arising from the defendant\u2019s mark. The suit was allowed to proceed, but no restraining orders were passed.<\/p>\n
\u201c32. The Court is of the view that the plaintiff has not been able to make out a prima facie case for grant of interim injunction… The word \u2018YATRA\u2019 is a common Hindi word meaning \u2018journey\u2019 or \u2018travel\u2019… it is per se descriptive in nature.\u201d<\/p>\n
\u201c35. In the present case, no survey or material has been placed on record to show that the mark \u2018YATRA\u2019 has acquired a secondary meaning\u2026\u201d<\/p>\n