Court’s Analysis and Judgment:
The court highlighted that “Yatra” is a generic, descriptive term that denotes travel and is widely used across India by numerous entities. Without evidence of secondary meaning or exclusive reputation, the court held that “Yatra” cannot be monopolized as a trademark while categorically stating that to acquire a secondary meaning, the primary meaning of the word has to be “lost and left behind”. It emphasized that generic words, unless they have acquired distinctiveness, remain available for use by all industry players. The court hereby rejected Yatra’s plea for an interim injunction, affirming that “Yatra” remains a descriptive term, and the defendant’s use does not constitute infringement.
Takeaway:
By this judgement, the Hon’ble Court has once again reiterated that generic and descriptive terms cannot and shall not be granted monopoly with respect to trademarks unless and until they have developed a clear and justifiable secondary meaning. Further, this goes to the genesis of Intellectual Property Laws in the country which strive to promote fair competition between consumers and businesses alike.
Disclaimer: This blog is intended solely for informational purposes and should not be considered legal advice. Readers are encouraged to reach out to us for legal advice if they have any queries or require further clarification.