Delhi High Court: In an application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (‘CPC’), Pratibha M. Singh, J., opined that considering that the plaintiff was a well-known company in the travel business who had built its goodwill and reputation throughout the years, the balance of convenience in the present case was in the plaintiff’s favour and if an injunction was not granted it would lead to an irreparable loss to the plaintiff. Thus, the Court temporarily restrained the defendant from using the mark ‘Dialmytrip’ in respect of tour, travel, hospitality and all other services. However, the Court further opined that the defendant was free to use its second domain name ‘www.dmtgroup.in’ in respect of tour, travel, hospitality, hotels cabs or any other related services.
Background
The plaintiff, MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited, was incorporated on 13-04-2000 under the trade name ‘Travel by Web Private Limited’ but it changed its name on 02-08-2000 to trade name ‘Makemytrip.com Pvt. Ltd.’. Thereafter, on 28-06-2002, the plaintiff’s name and mark were again changed to ‘MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd.’.
The plaintiff was one of the largest airline ticket booking platforms, travel platforms in India as well as internationally and had presence in a large number of foreign countries including USA, UAE, Mauritius, European Union, Australia and United Kingdom. The plaintiff was stated to be a pioneer of the Indian online travel industry and operated through its one-stop travel website MakeMyTrip platform. The plaintiff also provided a diverse range of tour packages, airline tickets, hotel bookings and other services with its modern IT infrastructure and dedicated customer support.
The plaintiff had expanded its products and services over the years through its website with the domain name www.makemytrip.com, which was also accessible through application based mobile platforms. The plaintiff’s domain name was registered on 08-05-2000 and since then, the plaintiff had registered a series of marks with the core being ‘MakeMyTrip’ and ‘My’ device.
The various logos used by the plaintiffs which included, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
, 
and 
and these marks were collectively referred to as the ‘MakeMyTrip Marks.’ The word MakeMyTrip had been registered since 2011 and the plaintiff now had the series of registrations for MakeMyTrip series of marks.
The plaintiff had filed the present application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC seeking interim injunction against the defendant, Dialmytrip Tech Pvt. Ltd. from using the name or mark ‘Dialmytrip’ and the domain names ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ and ‘www.dmtgroup.in’.
A comparative chart of the plaintiff’s and the defendant’s mark:
Analysis, Law, and Decision
The Court on perusal of the record observed that the defendant had two marks, one was ‘DMT’ and the other was ‘Dialmytrip’. The Court observed that insofar as the financial business was concerned, the defendant appeared to have been conducting banking, insurance and investment related services since 2015 and recently started the travel and tour related business.
The Court opined that the marks MakeMyTrip and Dialmytrip were confusingly similar with each other, and considering the manner in which online business related to travel was conducted, the defendant’s business and name was likely to be perceived as an extension of the plaintiff’s well-known business or as an affiliate and connected business. Such confusion was also likely to lead to dilution of the plaintiff’s mark and name as also brand equity.
The Court relied on Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah, (2002) 3 SCC 65, and opined that in cases related to trade mark violations and passing off, if the evidence established a prima facie case, even at the ex-parte stage, injunction ought to be granted. The Court opined that considering that the plaintiff was a well-known company in the travel business who had built its good will and reputation throughout the years, the balance of convenience in the present case was in the plaintiff’s favour and if an injunction was not granted it would lead to irreparable loss to the plaintiff.
Thus, the Court opined that at the present stage, prima facie, it was inclined to restrain the defendant and accordingly, restrained the defendant from using the mark ‘Dialmytrip’ in respect of tour, travel, hospitality and all other services. However, the Court further opined that the defendant was free to use its second domain name ‘www.dmtgroup.in’ in respect of tour, travel, hospitality, hotels cabs or any other related services.
The matter would next be listed on 22-03-2024.
[MakeMyTrip India Pvt. Ltd. v. Dialmytrip Tech Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Del 7563, Order dated 21-11-2023]
Advocates who appeared in this case :
For the Plaintiff: J. Sai Deepak, Mohit Goel, Sidhant Goel, Abhishek Kotnala, Advocates;
