Bombay High Court Recognises Shaadi.Com As A Well-Known Trademark; ₹25 Lakh Costs Awarded For Trademark Infringement

The Bombay High Court has recognised Shaadi.com as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, noting that the mark has acquired exceptional reputation, goodwill, and extensive brand recognition in connection with matrimonial and matchmaking services.

The judgment was rendered in PIIPL’s trademark infringement suit against Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani, the operator of the competing website getshaadi.com, along with the domain registrar and the hosting service provider, who were also impleaded as defendants. In 2013, the plaintiff discovered that the defendants had launched getshaadi.com and were using the plaintiff’s trademark as meta-tags and keywords, allegedly resulting in the diversion of internet traffic and forming the basis of the trademark infringement action.

Justice Arif S Doctor has stated, “there can be no manner of doubt that the trade mark “Shaadi.com” would qualify as a well-known trade mark as per the provision of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. Thus any unauthorised use of the trade mark “Shaadi.com”, or of any deceptively similar mark or domain name, would most likely result in an association or trade connection with the Plaintiff.”

“It is clear, therefore, that the entire intent of the Defendants was to divert the internet traffic from the Plaintiff’s website to that of the Defendant No.1 & 2 and thereby trade upon the Plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, apart from dilution of the Plaintiff’s mark and erosion of its distinctive character and goodwill. There can be no manner of doubt that this conduct on the part of the Defendants would cause loss, damage and harm to the Plaintiff.” the order reads.

The Court decreed the suit in favour of PIIPL by granting a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using *getshaadi.com* or any other deceptively similar expression, and directed them to surrender all materials bearing the infringing mark for destruction. Although PIIPL had claimed damages of ₹10 lakh, Justice Doctor ordered the defendants to jointly pay ₹25 lakh as costs within a period of 12 weeks, failing which interest at the rate of 8 per cent would be applicable thereafter.