[SpicyIP Tidbit] From Travel to Trouble: The Yatra Online vs. Mach Conferences Tussle
SpicyIP
[The post is authored by Subhalaxmi Mukherjee. Subhalaxmi is a third-year B.Sc LL.B. (Hons.) student at the West Bengal National University of Juridical Sciences (WBNUJS), Kolkata. She is interested in a wide range of public and commercial law subjects, including intellectual property, gender rights, and international arbitration. Her previous posts can be accessed here.]
In a decision delivered on August 22, 2025, the Delhi High Court ruled against Yatra Online (plaintiff), holding that the disputed “Yatra” mark was both generic and descriptive and, more importantly, carried a disclaimer that expressly denied the Plaintiff any exclusive rights over the word “Yatra”. The matter arose from an application filed by Yatra Online, which argued that the defendant, Mach Conferences, by registering and attempting to use the marks ‘BOOKMYYATRA’ and ‘BOOKMYYATRA.COM’, would infringe upon its existing marks ‘YATRA’ and ‘YATRA.COM’ while offering identical services, i.e. travel and tour. What at first looked like a routine trademark and passing-off squabble quickly took an unexpected turn, thanks to two clever arguments advanced by the defendants.
The first contention was that no entity can claim ownership over a generic word such as Yatra, which in Hindi simply means a journey. The second was that the Registrar of Trade Marks had already imposed a disclaimer stating that Yatra Online did not enjoy exclusive rights over the word, likely owing to its generic character. To pursue a trademark dispute despite this disclaimer is not only legally unsustainable but also logically perplexing. With that in mind, let us dig a little deeper into these arguments.
Does Yatra Mean Journey, or Yatra Online (As They’d Like It To)?
Before turning to the issue of the disclaimer, it is important to first consider whether the word Yatra is capable of trademark protection at all. Yatra Online argued that it is, contending that nearly two decades of continuous use have rendered the term a household name, one that has become synonymous with the company itself. On this basis, the plaintiff claimed that the word has acquired a secondary meaning which has displaced its original Hindi meaning. The defendant, Mach Conferences, strongly opposed this view, maintaining that Yatra is inherently generic and merely descriptive of the services the plaintiff offers. They further argued that the term cannot be exclusively associated with Yatra Online, since several other travel operators across India also use it in connection with identical services.
I, much like the Court, find merit in the latter perspective. Section 9(1)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (“the Act”) expressly prohibits the registration of marks that merely designate the kind or quality of the goods or services offered. The rationale is straightforward: without such a bar, a cereal manufacturer could monopolise the word ‘cereal,’ effectively preventing all other market players from using it, which would be patently absurd. In an arguendo observation, the Court also referred to Section 30 of the Act, which provides that the use of a registered trademark will not constitute infringement if it merely describes the nature of the services offered. Accordingly, even if Yatra were considered a registered mark, a claim of infringement would still fail.
Bringing finality to the issue, the Court emphatically noted that companies adopting generic names invariably run the risk of others using the same, since such marks rarely acquire true distinctiveness or lead the public to associate them exclusively with one brand. The Court further clarified that for a word to develop secondary meaning, its primary meaning must be completely displaced in public understanding. Since Yatra still signifies a journey, the claim of infringement, ironically enough, did not go anywhere.
So, What’s the Point of a Disclaimer Anyway?
Yatra device markNow, for the second argument, we must note that the plaintiff was granted registration of the device mark containing the word Yatra subject to a clear disclaimer that no exclusive rights were conferred over the word itself. The plaintiffs nevertheless argued that since Yatra formed the most essential and operative part of the device mark, the public had come to associate the company primarily with that word, thereby entitling them to claim common law rights over it. However, the defendant countered by arguing that a disclaimer is an essential condition attached to the grant of a trademark and cannot later be circumvented by claiming that the word has since acquired secondary meaning and is therefore eligible for protection. They further contended that if the plaintiff wished to assert broader rights, it should have first challenged or appealed the Registrar’s decision rather than unilaterally disregarding it. The Court, addressing the issue, reiterated the significance of disclaimers in clearly demarcating the scope of rights, beyond which no entity can claim exclusivity. Attempting to assert ownership over the generic word Yatra through the back door of a device mark registration was, therefore, held to be untenable. In a nutshell, while Yatra Online’s arguments were inventive, their attempt to quietly monopolise a generic word already ruled off-limits by the Registrar did not escape the Court’s scrutiny.