Yatra Online Limited vs. Mach Conferences and Events Limited

Posted On - 29 September, 2025 • By - King Stubb & Kasiva

Summary

Yatra Online Ltd. (hereinafter the Plaintiff) filed a plea for injunction against Mach Conferences and Events Private Limited (hereinafter the Defendant). The Delhi High Court dismissed the said plea. The Plaintiff sought an injunction against the Defendant, alleging infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, and unfair competition related to the use of trademarks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’. The Court held that the word ‘YATRA’ was a generic and descriptive word for travel and that the Plaintiff could never have an exclusive right thereon. The Court, however, considered both the marks with the prefix ‘BookMy’ to be dissimilar.

Issue Raised

The Plaintiff applied to obtain an injunction to stop the Defendant from using the trademarks ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ or ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ as part of a domain name or in any other manner. The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s use of these marks constituted trademark infringement, passing off, misrepresentation, dilution, and unfair competition.

Appellant’s (Yatra Online Limited) Arguments

  1. Yatra Online Limited is the registered proprietor of several ‘YATRA’ formative trademarks and has been using ‘YATRA’ as part of its trade name and corporate name since 2005.
  2. The Plaintiff’s trademarks i.e., ‘YATRA’ and ‘YATRA.COM’ have accumulated vast goodwill, reputation, and secondary meaning due to 19 years of uninterrupted use.
  3. The Defendant’s marks are deceptively similar to those of the Plaintiff, both visually and phonetically, and their usage by them for the same set of services is to the extent that will confound the customers.
  4. The adoption by the Defendant of the marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’ was intentional and with bad faith, meaning that the Defendant was aware of the Plaintiff’s well-established reputation in the online travel industry.
  5. The Plaintiff’s marks, which are disclaimed for the word ‘YATRA,’ have attained common law rights and prima facie dominance; disclaimers, therefore, do not affect customer perception of a brand in the market.
  6. The suit is a “quia timet qua” type of action, which means it is to forestall a real and tangible threat of incoming harm before the Defendant could proceed to fully launch its business.

Respondent’s (Mach Conferences and Events Limited) Arguments

  1. The Plaintiff has no exclusive rights to the word “YATRA” because it is a generic and descriptive word in Hindi for “travel.” The Registrar of Trademarks even disclaimed any exclusive right to the word “YATRA” when registering some of the Plaintiff’s marks.
  2. The Plaintiff is, in essence, cybersquatting by registering numerous domain names and trademark registrations in classes where it is not in any kind of business, just to thwart legitimate competition.
  3. Defendant’s marks, ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’, when taken as a whole, differ distinctly from the Plaintiff’s marks.
  4. The combination of Book and My serves as a common prefix for several businesses online, and the Defendant’s marks are coined marks unlikely to lead to confusion with the Plaintiff’s marks.
  5. The word ‘YATRA’ has not attained secondary meaning so much so that it is ever perceived exclusively as being associated with the Plaintiff by a majority of other travel operators spread across India.
  6. The Plaintiff has neither attempted to declare ‘YATRA’ as a well-known mark under the law nor sought any such declaration of the mark in this suit.

Judgment

The High Court of Delhi dismissed the Plaintiff’s application for an interim injunction.

Analysis

The Court noted that “YATRA” is a synonym for travel in Hindi and widely used in the industry, making it generic and descriptive. It emphasized that such terms cannot be monopolised and that the Plaintiff’s registrations carried disclaimers expressly denying exclusivity over the word. The Court also found no evidence that “YATRA” had acquired a secondary meaning exclusively linked to the Plaintiff. Further, it held that the Defendant’s prefix “BookMy” gave its mark a distinguishable character, and, following the BigTree Entertainment precedent, the prefix itself was descriptive and non-exclusive.

Conclusion

Since the Plaintiff failed to establish exclusivity or secondary meaning in “YATRA”, no prima facie case for infringement or passing off was made out. The Court vacated the ex-parte injunction and dismissed the application, holding that the Defendant’s ‘BookMyYatra’ marks could not be restrained.