The Bombay High Court recently held that Shaadi.com is a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act after finding the mark enjoys exceptional reputation, goodwill and brand recognition in relation to matrimonial and matchmaking services [People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.].
The ruling was delivered by Justice Arif S Doctor in a 2015 suit filed by People Interactive India Private Limited (PIIPL), which owns Shaadi.com.
"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 ... 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," the Court held in its January 6 ruling
The judgment was passed on PIIPL's trademark infringement suit against Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani, an operator of the competing website getshaadi.com, as well as its domain registrar and hosting service provider (defendants).
Justice Doctor held that the defendants had infringed trademark rights that PIIPL had established rights over the Shaadi.com mark.
“The use of the impugned mark and domain name by the defendants in respect of identical services clearly amounts to infringement of PIIPL’s registered trade marks within the Trade Marks Act,” the Court recorded.
PIIPL had sought a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the mark and domain name getshaadi.com, arguing that it was deceptively similar to its registered trademarks and was being used in a manner that caused confusion and diluted the distinctiveness of Shaadi.com.
The company submitted that Shaadi.com had been adopted as a mark in 1996 and had been in commercial use since 2000, with millions of registered users, high turnover, and extensive advertising expenditure.
It therefore qualified as a ‘well‑known trademark’ under the Act, PIIPL contended, adding that the expression getshaadi.com subsumed the entirety of its mark.
A web analytics report placed on record indicated that the defendants had diverted web traffic by over 73% using shaadi.com in the meta tags and keywords of their website.
Despite repeated notices, none appeared for the defendants, and the matter proceeded ex parte (without hearing the defendants).
The Court granted a decree in PIIPL’s favour by issuing a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using getshaadi.com or any similar expression. It further directed them to hand over all materials bearing the infringing mark for destruction.
While PIIPL had sought ₹10 lakh in damages, Justice Doctor ordered the defendants to jointly pay ₹25 lakh as costs within 12 weeks, with interest at 8 per cent thereafter.
“The award of costs must be realistic and compensatory, and it should ordinarily follow the event so as to ensure that a successful litigant is not left bearing the financial burden of vindicating its rights,” the Court said, citing Supreme Court precedent.
In respect of its well-known status, Justice Doctor noted Shaadi.com’s continuous and exclusive use since 2000 across online and offline matrimonial and matchmaking services.
The Court observed that the company had grown from around ₹26.6 crore in 2005–06 to ₹91.7 crore in 2012–13, with certified records showing advertising and promotional spends exceeding ₹172 crore worldwide during that period.
By the time the suit was filed, Shaadi.com had over 20 million registered users and had facilitated approximately 3.2 million matches.
Combined with billions of website visits and constant media promotion, this established an immense degree of reputation and goodwill attached to the registered mark, the Court held.
The Bench also noted that PIIPL holds multiple valid and subsisting registrations incorporating “shaadi” or “shadi”. Another key factor in the Court’s decision to rule in favour of PIIPL was the defendants’ use of Shaadi.com as a meta tag and keyword on their website.
“It is clear ... that the entire intent of the defendants was to divert the internet traffic from (PIIPL’s) website to that of (the defendants) and thereby trade upon the PIIPL’s goodwill and reputation... There can be no manner of doubt that this conduct on the part of the defendants would cause loss, damage and harm to (PIIPL),” Justice Doctor observed.
The Court further found that Shaadi.com’s fame transcends the matrimonial sector and that its use even for dissimilar goods or services could lead consumers to assume a trade connection with PIIPL, justifying its recognition as a well‑known trademark.
Advocates Yatin Khochare and Preeta Panthaki briefed by Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP appeared for PIIPL.
[Read judgment]