Delhi High Court: In a suit filed by MakeMyTrip (India) (P) Ltd. seeking protection of its registered trade mark “MakeMyTrip” against the use of the allegedly infringing marks “MakeMyIndiaTrip” and its logo in relation to identical travel and tourism services, a Single Judge Bench of Jyoti Singh, J., granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned marks, trade name, logo and domain name “www.makemyindiatrip.com”, or any other mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s well-known “MakeMyTrip”/
trade marks.
The Court held that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off, that the balance of convenience lay in its favour, and that continued use of the impugned marks was likely to cause consumer confusion, dilute the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, and result in irreparable harm to its business interests.
Background
The plaintiff instituted a suit seeking permanent injunction against infringement of its registered trade mark “MakeMyTrip”, passing off, dilution and allied reliefs. The plaintiff asserted that it is one of India’s leading online travel companies and has been continuously using the coined and distinctive mark “MakeMyTrip”/ 
since 2000 in relation to a wide range of travel and tourism services, including flight, hotel, rail and bus bookings, holiday packages, visa assistance and travel-related services. It was contended that over more than 2 decades, the plaintiff had acquired extensive goodwill and reputation through substantial business operations, worldwide trade mark registrations, extensive advertising campaigns, strategic collaborations, celebrity endorsements, sponsorships and a significant online and social media presence. The plaintiff claimed statutory as well as common law rights in the “MakeMyTrip” marks and logos 
, which have become exclusively associated with its business. In March 2026, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant was using the marks “MakeMyIndiaTrip” and its logo, along with the domain name “www.makemyindiatrip.com”, for identical travel and tourism services. According to the plaintiff, the impugned marks were visually, structurally and conceptually similar to its registered marks, and the mere addition of the word “India” did not distinguish them. It was alleged that the defendant had adopted the impugned marks, trade name, website and social media presence in a manner calculated to ride upon the plaintiff’s goodwill, create an impression of association with the plaintiff and cause confusion among consumers, thereby constituting infringement under Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999 and passing off.
Analysis
The Court observed that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case for grant of an ex parte ad interim injunction, with the balance of convenience lying in its favour and a likelihood of irreparable harm if protection was denied. The Court noted that the plaintiff was the registered proprietor of the trade mark “MakeMyTrip” and found the impugned marks “MakeMyIndiaTrip” and its logo 
to be deceptively similar. It held that the addition of the word “India” was insufficient to distinguish the rival marks, particularly when the parties were providing identical travel-related services to a common consumer base. The Court further observed that confusion among consumers, including initial interest confusion, point-of-sale confusion and post-sale confusion, could not be ruled out in view of the plaintiff’s extensive goodwill and reputation. Prima facie, the defendant’s adoption of the impugned marks appeared to be in bad faith and intended to create a false affiliation or nexus with the plaintiff.
Decision
Holding that the continued use of the impugned marks would dilute and erode the plaintiff’s goodwill and constituted infringement under Section 29, Trade Marks Act, 1999, the Court restrained the defendant, till the next date of hearing, from using the marks “MakeMyIndiaTrip”/ 
and its logo, the trade name “MakeMyIndiaTrip”, the domain name www.makemyindiatrip.com, and any other mark deceptively similar to “MakeMyTrip”. The plaintiff was directed to comply with the requirements of Order 39 Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) within 2 weeks.
Also Read: Australia HC ruling in Katy Perry trade mark dispute| SCC Times
Also Read: Toyota’s “ALPHARD” declared well-known trade mark | SCC Times
[MakeMyTrip (India) (P) Ltd. v. MakeMyIndiaTrip, CS(COMM) 650 of 2026, decided on 29-5-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Plaintiff: Mohit Goel, Siddhant Goel, Deepankar Mishra and Soumya Khandelwal, Advocates.
