Bombay High Court Declares Shaadi.com a Well-Known Trademark
The Bombay High Court has officially recognised Shaadi.com as a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The decision came in a trademark infringement case filed by People Interactive India Private Limited, the company that owns and operates Shaadi.com.
The case was heard by Justice Arif S Doctor, who ruled that Shaadi.com enjoys an exceptional level of reputation, goodwill, and public recognition in the field of matrimonial and matchmaking services.
What was the dispute about?
The lawsuit was filed against Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani, who was running a competing website called getshaadi.com, along with the domain registrar and hosting service provider. PIIPL argued that the name getshaadi.com was deceptively similar to Shaadi.com and was being used to mislead users.
The defendants did not appear before the Court despite repeated notices, and the case was decided ex parte.
Why did the Court call Shaadi.com a well-known trademark?
The Court relied on several strong factors:
- Shaadi.com has been in continuous and exclusive use since 2000
- The brand has over 20 million registered users
- It has facilitated around 3.2 million marriages
- The company’s turnover grew significantly over the years
- Advertising and promotional spending exceeded ₹172 crore globally
- The platform has received billions of website visits and constant media coverage
Based on this, the Court held that Shaadi.com has crossed the boundaries of its sector and has become widely recognised by the public at large.
Infringement through domain name and meta tags
The Court found that the defendants were using “shaadi.com” as meta tags and keywords, which diverted over 73% of web traffic to their website. This, the Court said, clearly showed an intention to ride on Shaadi.com’s reputation and goodwill.
Justice Doctor observed that such conduct would inevitably cause confusion among users and harm the original brand.
Final order of the Court
The High Court:
- Granted a permanent injunction restraining the use of getshaadi.com or any similar name
- Directed the defendants to hand over all infringing material for destruction
- Ordered the defendants to pay ₹25 lakh as costs, which was higher than the ₹10 lakh claimed by PIIPL
- Imposed 8% interest if the amount is not paid within 12 weeks
The Court clarified that costs must be realistic and compensatory so that successful parties are not burdened for protecting their legal rights.
Why this ruling matters
The judgment reinforces that famous digital brands can enjoy protection even beyond their core services. It also sends a strong message against using similar domain names or online tactics like meta-tagging to unfairly divert traffic.
