The Delhi High Court holds that the word “Yatra”, meaning “journey” or “travel” in Hindi, is generic and descriptive and therefore cannot be monopolised as a trademark in relation to travel services.

The Ruling came in Yatra Online Limited Vs Mach Conferences and Events [CS(COMM) 1099/2024], whereby the interim injunction sought by Yatra Online Limited’s (Plaintiff), to restrain Mach Conferences and Events Limited (Defendant) from using the marks “BookMyYatra” and “BookMyYatra.com” (Impugned Marks) being similar to their mark Yatra.com.

Background of the Case

Plaintiff, a prominent travel portal brought a lawsuit for trademark infringement, passing off, unfair competition and dilution, objecting to the Defendant’s use of the marks “BookMyYatra” and “BookMyYatra.com” being deceptively similar to its “Yatra” formative marks which is likely to cause confusion among consumers. The Plaintiff initially obtained an ex-parte interim injunction restraining the Defendant from using the impugned marks until it was set aside on August 22 2025.

Plaintiff’s Contentions:

1. Statutory Rights in the Mark “Yatra”: Plaintiff claimed that it has been using the mark “Yatra” since 2006 and is the registered proprietor of several marks being YATRA.COM, YATRA WITH DEVICE, YATRA FREIGHT etc. wherein the word “Yatra” is the dominant element.
2. Distinctiveness and Secondary Meaning: The Plaintiff claimed that the mark “Yatra” is distinctive, well known and exclusive to the Plaintiff. Owing to nearly two decades of continuous and extensive use, substantial promotional and advertising activities; the mark “Yatra” has acquired a secondary meaning and is well known.
3. Likelihood of Confusion: Defendant’s adoption/use of the impugned marks for identical service of travel booking and related activities created a likelihood of confusion, misrepresentation, and dilution of the Plaintiff’s goodwill.
4. Bad Faith: Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant’s use of the impugned marks was in bad faith and deliberately intended to cause consumer confusion and ride on Plaintiff’s goodwill.
5. Anti Dissection Rule: Plaintiff contended that the “anti dissection” rule doesn’t prevent the Court from recognizing “Yatra” as the dominant element. It asserted that both the principles, of anti-dissection and ‘dominant mark’, are complementary and not contradictory.
6. Disclaimers and Public Perception: Despite disclaimers in some registrations stating, “No exclusive right for the word YATRA,” the Plaintiff asserted that “YATRA” is the dominant and essential feature of their trademarks. They argued that the disclaimers do not affect the public perception of the mark.
7. Balance of Convenience: The Plaintiff argued that the balance of convenience favours them as the Defendant has not yet launched its business under the impugned marks and can operate under a different name without prejudice

Defendant’s Contentions:

1. “Yatra” is Generic and Descriptive: Defendant argued that “Yatra” is a commonly used Hindi word meaning “journey” or “pilgrimage”, making it highly descriptive of the services provided (travel and tours), thus, cannot be exclusively monopolised by a single entity.
2. No Secondary Meaning: Plaintiff failed to show that the public associates “Yatra” exclusively with its services. It argued that there is no evidence to suggest that the primary significance and meaning of “Yatra” is replaced to identify the word exclusively with the Plaintiff.
3. Commonly used term: Several third parties in the travel industry use the word “Yatra” in the course of their business. Plaintiff is unfairly trying to monopolize the generic word “Yatra”.
4. Explicit Disclaimer: Defendant argued that Plaintiff’s trademark registrations were for “device marks” or “combination marks” and not for standalone word “Yatra”. These registrations were granted with a disclaimer, and Plaintiff cannot accept such a disclaimer at the time of registration and later attempt to seek exclusivity.
5. Domain Name Squatting: Plaintiff had registered 69 domain names, of which 67 were inactive, and had filed for trademarks across unrelated classes, suggesting a strategic attempt to block competition rather than genuine commercial expansion.
6. Prejudice and Loss: The Defendant claimed that they have suffered serious prejudice and considerable loss due to the ex-parte injunction obtained by the Plaintiff, which has delayed the launch of their business

Court’s Ruling and Observations:

1. Generic Words Cannot Be Monopolised: The Court reiterated that generic or descriptive words, cannot function as trademarks, as they fail to indicate the origin or source of the goods or services. Allowing a single entity to monopolise such a word would be contrary to public interest, as it would stifle competition.
2. Failure to Prove Secondary Meaning: Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a substantial portion of the consuming public associated term “Yatra” exclusively with Plaintiff or that the original meaning of the word is displaced. The presence of multiple businesses using similar names diluted any claim of distinctiveness.
3. Binding Effect of Disclaimers: Court emphasized that the Plaintiff had accepted disclaimers in its trademark registrations, explicitly stating it had no exclusive claim over “Yatra”. Such disclaimers are not procedural formalities but binding limitations that cannot be disregarded later.
4. “Yatra” Not Well-Known: Court also rejected the claim that “YATRA” was a well-known mark, as no formal declaration was obtained from the Registrar.
5. No Deceptive Similarity: Court compared the marks as a whole and concluded that the marks, ‘BookMyYatra’ and ‘BookMyYatra.com’, were distinguishable from Plaintiff’s marks due to the prominent “BookMy” prefix, which is a common and descriptive phrase in the online booking space.
6. No Prima Facie Case: Court held that ‘YATRA’ and ‘.com’ both are generic and descriptive, thus ‘YATRA.COM’ also is generic. The Court found no prima facie case for passing off or infringement and vacated the interim injunction.

Our Comment:

The judgment clearly establishes that businesses cannot claim exclusive rights over culturally rooted or generic terms. Additionally, descriptive words, even with extensive use, cannot be monopolized to the detriment of public interest and fair competition. However, instead of making a conclusive finding at the preliminary injunction stage that the Plaintiff failed to prove secondary meaning, the Court should have allowed the Plaintiff to present evidence to demonstrate whether the mark ‘YATRA’ had attained secondary meaning before arriving at a final decision on this matter.