The tension between proprietary rights in trademarks and the public’s right to use generic terms often comes to the fore in industries where certain words have a natural descriptive association. A recent case before the Delhi High Court—Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences and Events Ltd. (CS (COMM) 1099/2024, decided on 22 August 2025)—offers a compelling example.
The dispute revolved around the plaintiff, Yatra Online Limited, a leading online travel services provider operating since 2006, and the defendant, Mach Conferences & Events Limited, which sought to launch an online portal under the brand “BookMyYatra.” The plaintiff claimed that such use infringed its rights in the mark “YATRA” and “YATRA.COM,” while the defendant argued that “yatra” is a generic Hindi term meaning “journey” and thus incapable of exclusive appropriation.
This article explores the legal battle, analyses the competing arguments, and evaluates the Court’s reasoning in determining whether “Yatra” qualifies as a well-known trademark or remains a generic, descriptive term.
Background of the Case
Plaintiff’s Business and Trademark Portfolio
- Yatra Online Limited adopted the word “YATRA” in 2005 and launched its online platform in 2006 through yatra.com, offering flight bookings, hotels, holiday packages, and related services.
- It registered multiple marks, including “YATRA WITH DEVICE,” “YATRA.COM,” and “YATRA FREIGHT.” However, the Registrar of Trademarks granted these registrations with a disclaimer: “No exclusive right for the word YATRA”.
- The company claimed substantial goodwill, boasting over 15 million customers and a turnover of ₹5,607 crore in 2023–24, and argued that “Yatra” had acquired secondary significance, synonymous with its brand.
Defendant’s Adoption of “BookMyYatra”
- The defendant, traditionally operating in the Meetings, Incentives, Conferences, and Exhibitions (MICE) segment, proposed to expand into B2C travel services.
- It registered domain names such as bookmyyatra.com, filed trademark applications for “BookMyYatra,” and prepared to launch services.
- The plaintiff alleged bad faith, arguing that the defendant was riding on Yatra’s goodwill by combining “BookMy” (popularized by “BookMyShow”) with “Yatra.”
Interim Proceedings
- In December 2024, the Court granted an ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendant from using “BookMyYatra.”
- After full arguments, the Court had to decide whether “Yatra” was protectable as a distinctive or well-known mark, or whether it was merely generic.
Plaintiff’s Arguments
Distinctiveness and Secondary Meaning
- Although “Yatra” means “journey,” the plaintiff argued that through 19 years of consistent use, the term had come to identify exclusively with its services.
- It relied on case law such as Amritdhara Pharmacy v. Satyadeo Gupta (1962) and Ramdev Food Products Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel (2006), which recognised secondary meaning for descriptive terms.
Consumer Recognition
- A Google search for “Yatra” yielded results primarily for the plaintiff’s website, showing public association of the word with its services.
- Awards from the Ministry of Tourism and industry recognition further reinforced distinctiveness.
Bad Faith Adoption
- The defendant’s adoption of “BookMyYatra” was deliberate, seeking to capitalize on the reputation of “Yatra.”
- The plaintiff argued that disclaimers in trademark registrations are irrelevant to consumers, who are unaware of such technicalities.
Well-Known Mark Status
- The plaintiff asserted that “Yatra” qualifies as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, as it enjoys wide recognition among the public.
Defendant’s Arguments
Generic and Descriptive Nature
- “Yatra” is the Hindi word for travel, widely used by thousands of operators across India and abroad.
- Over 48 registrations in Class 39 and 280 in other classes include the word “Yatra,” showing its generic usage.
Effect of Disclaimer
- The plaintiff’s registrations came with an express disclaimer denying exclusivity over “Yatra.”
- Under law, such disclaimers prevent proprietors from claiming rights over the disclaimed portion.
No Secondary Meaning
- Despite advertising expenditure, the plaintiff had not shown that “Yatra” displaced its primary meaning of “journey.”
- Consumers still associate “yatra” with “travel” generally, not exclusively with the plaintiff.
Composite Mark Protection
- Citing Nilkamal Crates v. Reena Rajpal (2023), the defendant argued that marks must be assessed as a whole. “BookMyYatra” was a coined expression, visually and conceptually distinct from “Yatra.”
Public Interest
Granting exclusivity over “Yatra” would unfairly harm small operators who have used the term for decades.
Court’s Analysis
1. Genericness of “Yatra”
- The Court acknowledged that “yatra” literally means “journey” and is commonly descriptive of travel services.
- Section 30 of the Trade Marks Act excludes protection where use merely indicates the kind, quality, or purpose of services.
- Since many travel operators use “Yatra” and the Registrar had imposed disclaimers, the Court held that the plaintiff cannot monopolise the term.
2. Secondary Meaning Test
- To prove secondary meaning, the primary descriptive sense of a term must be displaced so that consumers associate it only with one source.
- The Court found that the plaintiff failed this test: “yatra” still primarily means travel, not exclusively the plaintiff’s services.
3. Effect of Disclaimer
- By accepting disclaimers during registration, the plaintiff was estopped from later claiming exclusivity over “Yatra.”
- Citing Pernod Ricard v. AB Sugars Ltd. (2023), the Court held that disclaimed elements cannot form the basis of infringement claims.
4. Well-Known Trademark Status
- The Court clarified that a mark can only be declared “well-known” under Rule 124 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017 through a specific procedure.
- Since Yatra had not pursued this procedure, and given the generic nature of the word, it could not be recognised as a well-known trademark.
5. Comparison of Marks
- When viewed as a whole, “BookMyYatra” was held distinguishable from “Yatra.”
- The prefix “BookMy” and differences in styling reduced likelihood of confusion.
6. Balance of Convenience
- Since the defendant had not yet launched its portal, no prejudice would arise if it used another name. However, an injunction could not be justified because “Yatra” was generic.
Judgment
The Court dismissed Yatra Online’s application for an injunction, holding:
- “Yatra” is a generic and descriptive word, incapable of exclusive appropriation in relation to travel services.
- The plaintiff failed to prove secondary meaning or distinctiveness.
- “Yatra” cannot be declared a well-known trademark under the Act.
- The defendant’s use of “BookMyYatra” was not infringing, as the mark must be considered as a whole.
- Accordingly, the interim injunction was vacated.
Key Highlights of the Decision
Justice Tejas Karia observed:
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. Hence, the Defendant cannot be prevented from using the Impugned Trade Marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’.
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.
Broader Legal Implications
- Risks of Adopting Generic Terms: Companies that adopt generic words (like “Yatra,” “Taxi,” or “Hotel”) as brand names face hurdles in asserting exclusive rights. While such names aid consumer recall, they are difficult to defend legally.
- Distinction Between Device Marks and Word Marks: The case underscores the importance of distinguishing between device marks (logos) and word marks. Even where a brand builds recognition, disclaimers on word elements can severely limit protection.
- Public Interest in Free Use of Common Words: Trademark law balances private rights with public interest. Granting a monopoly over common words would unjustly hinder competition.
- Well-Known Mark Recognition Requires Procedure: The Court emphasised that “well-known” status cannot be claimed casually; it must follow the statutory procedure under Rule 124.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Yatra Online Ltd. v. Mach Conferences & Events Ltd. clarifies a fundamental principle: generic words cannot be monopolised, no matter how widely they are used in commerce.
While “Yatra” has become synonymous with one of India’s largest travel portals, its primary meaning—“journey”—remains intact in public perception. As a result, the Court held that it cannot qualify as a well-known trademark.
For businesses, the case is a reminder of the strategic risk in adopting generic terms as brands. Building goodwill is possible, but enforcing exclusivity may be legally unattainable. The safer course is to invest in distinctive, coined, or arbitrary marks that enjoy stronger protection.
Important Link
Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams