MAKEMYTRIP PRIVATE LTD vs DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LTD

Advertisements

Spread the love

Post Views: 204

MAKEMYTRIP PRIVATE LTD vs DIALMYTRIP TECH PRIVATE LTD

CITATION	2023 SCC OnLine Del 7563
DATE OF JUDGMENT	21^st November 2023
COURT	High Court of Delhi
PLAINTIFF	MakeMyTrip India Private Ltd
DEFENDANT	Dialmytrip Tech Private Ltd
BENCH	Justice Prathiba M. Singh

INTRODUCTION:

The petitioner, MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd filed an injunction suit against Dialmytrip Tech Pvt Ltd from using the name/mark ‘Dialmytrip’ and the domain names ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ and ‘www.dmtgroup.in’.

FACTS:

The domain name of the plaintiff, www.makemytrip.com was registered on the 8^th of May 2000. The plaintiff is the operator of the MakeMyTrip portal. The case of the plaintiffs is that it was incorporated in 2000 and is one of the largest ticket booking platforms and travel platforms in India and internationally. The company was once under the name ‘Travel by Web Private Limited’ but it was changed to ‘MakeMyTrip Pvt. Ltd’ on the 2^nd of August 2000. The plaintiff states that it is the pioneer of the Indian online travel industry. It provides many tour packages, airline tickets, hotel bookings, and other services using modern IT infrastructure and customer support. The plaintiff expanded its products and services through its website and mobile application platforms. The gross bookings of the plaintiff amounts to be over Rs. 3000 crore in FY 2018-2019 and the net sales and promotional expenditure amounts to Rs.1.69 lakh crore and Rs.25 lakh respectively. The plaintiff had hits more then Rs. 26 crore and more than 2 crore bookings for the year 2023. The plaintiff states that it is aggrieved by the impugned name, mark and domain name dialmytrip of the defendant. They are both engaged in similar businesses. The defendant operates through the domain names www.dialmytrip.com and www.dmtgroup.in. The defendant was issued a cease and desist notice on 25^th May of 2023 because the plaintiff is of the opinion that the name of the defendant constitutes infringement.

ISSUE RAISED:

Whether an injunction can be granted to the plaintiffs MakeMyTrip against the defendant Dialmytrip Tech Pvt.Ltd from using the name/mark Dialmytrip and domain names ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ and ‘www.dmtgroup.in’

CONTENTIONS OF THE PLAINTIFF:

The plaintiff, MakeMyTrip, is one of the largest airline ticket booking platform with a huge presence in India and Internationally in countries like the United States of America, the United Arab Emirates, European Union, United Kingdom, Mauritius and Australia.
The plaintiff has expanded its products and services over the years through its website, with the domain name www.makemytrip.com and its mobile applications.
The plaintiff became aware of the defendant’s business and usage of the mark in May 2023.
The plaintiff is aggrieved by the use of the ‘Dialmytrip’ which is the domain name, impugned name, mark of the defendant.
The defendant is engaged in a business similar to that of the plaintiff. It has started providing travel related services including booking tickets, reservation of hotels all over India and internationally. Earlier it was only providing financial and other services.
The counsel for the plaintiff quoted the cases MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt.Ltd vs Priyadharshini Air Wings Pvt.Ltd and MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt.Ltd vs MTB Travel Planner Pvt.Ltd & Anr where the court held that marks such as ‘PickMyTrip’ and ‘MyTripBazaar’ amounts to the misuse of plaintiffs marks.

CONTENTIONS OF THE DEFENDANTS:

The plaintiff issued a cease and desist notice to the defendant. In response to the same, the defendant contended that they are mainly engaged in providing banking, insurance and investment services.
The defendant is not substantially involved in the services carried down by the plaintiffs. The turnover percentage of the defendants from tours and travel services is near about 0.8% of total turnover and monetarily over 7 lakh. The contention of the defendant is that this amount is negligible compared to the sum the plaintiffs make.
The defendant has its own registered brand name “DMT” which is the abbreviated word of Dial My Trip therefore they have the right to commercially exploit the word DMT in public domain through its website.

JUDGEMENT:

The court restrained the defendant from using the mark ‘Dialmytrip’ with respect to tour, travel, hospitality and all other services. The defendant is also restrained from using the first domain name www.dialmytrip.com but it is free to use the second none. The balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff because it is a very well known company in the travel business. It has immense reputation and goodwill. The court held that not granting injunction in this case will result in irreparable loss to the plaintiff because it will lead people to believe that the services of the defendant is an extension of the plaintiff’s service. This confusion also dilutes the plaintiff’s mark and the brand equity.

ANALYSIS:

In the case Laxmikant V Patel vs Chetanbhai Shah & Ors, the Supreme Court observed the following: “Once a case of passing off is made out the practice is generally to grant a prompt ex-parte injunction followed by appointment of local Commissioner, if necessary.…” Therefore it is clear from this case that when there is a trademark violation and passing off, if there is a clear evidence is present even in the ex parte hearing, an injunction must be granted. The appellate court will not reevaluate the evidence and attempt to vary from the lower court’s decision only on the grounds that it would have reached a different decision had it reviewed the case during the trial. The fact that the appellate court would have adopted a different position may not excuse meddling with the trial court’s exercise of discretion if it has been done so fairly and judicially. Another observation was made in the case N.R.Dongre vs Whirlpool Corporation and Anr and it reads as follows:

“However, the present one is a case falling within the well accepted exceptions. Neither the Trial Court nor the High Court have kept in view and applied their mind to the relevant settled principles of law governing the grant or refusal of interlocutory injunction in trade mark and trade name disputes. A refusal to grant an injunction in spite of the availability of facts, which are prima facie established by overwhelming evidence and material available on record justifying the grant thereof, occasion a failure of justice and such injury to the plaintiff as would not be capable of being undone at a latter stage. The discretion exercised by the Trial Court and the High Court against the plaintiff, is neither reasonable nor judicious. The grant of interlocutory injunction to the plaintiff could not have been refused, therefore, it becomes obligatory on the part of this Court to interfere”

CONCLUSION:

In conclusion, the judgment in the case of MakeMyTrip (India) Pvt. Ltd versus Dialmytrip Tech Pvt Ltd underscores the critical importance of protecting established trademarks and brands in the business landscape. The court’s decision to grant an injunction against Dialmytrip Tech Pvt Ltd from using the mark ‘Dialmytrip’ and the domain name ‘www.dialmytrip.com’ reflects a commitment to upholding the rights of companies like MakeMyTrip that have built substantial reputation and goodwill over the years. Ultimately, the conclusion reached in this case serves as a reminder to businesses operating in similar industries of the importance of conducting thorough trademark searches and respecting the intellectual property rights of others. It reinforces the notion that maintaining integrity in the marketplace benefits not only individual companies but also contributes to a fair and competitive business environment overall.

Sources:

Written by Rashmi Narasimhan an intern under legal vidhiya.

Disclaimer: The materials provided herein are intended solely for informational purposes. Accessing or using the site or the materials does not establish an attorney-client relationship. The information presented on this site is not to be construed as legal or professional advice, and it should not be relied upon for such purposes or used as a substitute for advice from a licensed attorney in your state. Additionally, the viewpoint presented by the author is of a personal nature.