Descriptive Trademark, Market Power, and the Limits of Exclusivity: The “Yatra” Dispute
Introduction
Every industry seeks to create colonise a word before it sells a product, for language is often the first point of consumer trust and recognition. In sectors such as travel and event management, vernacular words acquire misappropriate commercial force because they describe what consumers already desire. Describe exactly who the consumer is and what they want. Problems emerge with ubiquitous recognition of success and overlap into trafficking when a brand or corporate identity becomes intertwined with quotidian language and becomes treated as “owned” by the business and companies start using common terms or phrases that are associated with the word as exclusive or proprietary.
An example of such a dispute is that of “Yatra” which exemplifies the commercial tension between using common language on a commercial level. “Yatra” is used in normal speech (e.g., when planning a pilgrimage, in advertisements for travel, on food packages, etc.) before businesses adopted the word “Yatra” in their corporate branding. In the case of Yatra Online Ltd v Mach Conference & Events Ltd, this dispute did not rest on the issue of “copying” or “deceptive representations”, but considered a broader issue as to whether or not the success of a word on a commercial level will create a monopoly on public language.
Therefore, businesses and readers alike must ask themselves the hard question as to where does a company stop Trademark protection from the time of creation to its registry? This case does not only affect lawyers; it also impacts the entire startup community and the entrepreneurs that operate businesses within that Community.
Main Legal Provisions and Issues:
Section 9 (1)(b), Trade Marks Act, 1999
Prohibits registration of marks which are descriptive of the kind, quality, or purpose of services.
Section 9 (1)(c), Trade Marks Act, 1999
Bars registration of marks which have become customary in current language or trade practices.
Proviso to Section 9
Allows registration if the mark has acquired distinctiveness through use
Core Legal Issue
Whether long-standing commercial use of a descriptive word can override its ordinary meaning and justify exclusive trademark protection.
When Market Success Starts Claiming the Dictionary:
As businesses grow quickly, the result of the growth is a change in the way that businesses think about their success. Businesses with successful brands frequently have an inclination to conflate the visibility of their brand with entitlement of the brand name. A business that dominates the search results for a term, creates an advertisement for that term, and is talked about in public may become convinced that they own the right to use that term. However, this belief may be countered by the fact that consumers continue to use the same term incorrectly when talking about similar types of products or services. For several years, despite the fact that a business has built a brand for Yatra, the word Yatra is now being used to describe many different types of products and service offered by different businesses. When a consumer searches for ‘Yatra’, the consumer does not think of one specific business. The term Yatra is generic in meaning to the ordinary consumer and describes a form of travel/activity.
From a litigation perspective, this is where claims often overreach and attempting to convert goodwill into exclusive vocabulary. Courts treat such situations circumspectly, and aware that allowing ownership over commonly used words would narrow the market for everyone else. In the Yatra dispute, the court looked beyond advertising reach and examined how the word survives in everyday usage. Their focus reinforced a critical principle that trademark law does not reward dominance by shrinking the public’s access to language. This case illustrates a recurring warning for businesses by market leadership strengthens a brand, but it does not grant the power to rewrite meanings.
It also affects Consumers who use common terms and expressions to find products and services based on their needs. The court ultimately established its reasoning for the usage of a trademark based on the real-world usage rather than on the benefit of the business. A refusal of a monopoly guarantees that trademark protection would be used not as a means for the business to create a monopoly, but rather to protect consumers against being deceived by false advertising and other forms of deception.
Why Courts Trust Consumers Understanding Over Brand Claims:
Businesses involved in trademark lawsuits typically present evidence in court primarily through numbers that indicate how many units and dollar sales were generated by their advertising campaigns, combined with the amount of time they have been selling their products, to justify their trademark claims. Courts do not typically base decisions exclusively on numeric data, as trademarks ultimately exist for consumers’ benefit rather than for the benefit of a business’s balance sheet. Although a business’s name or mark may appear to be synonymous with its business when searching for it online, that does not necessarily mean that consumers will stop identifying the original meaning of that name or mark.
This issue became very apparent with the trademark dispute surrounding “Yatra”, the prevalence of the word “yatra” being used by numerous brands did not diminish the fact that the word “Yatra” has a direct correlation to what an average person would associate with Yatra as a travel company. The same is true for every company using the term, Yatra. Consumers encounter Yatra as a word in temples, travel packages, group travel arrangements, and through informal encounters with both friends and family, and those types of encounters will always take precedence over a business’s ability to create a strong advertising presence. Therefore, in trademark cases, courts typically ask a simple, but critical question: When the general consumer hears Yatra, do they think of that business or this word as a travel experience?
In the case of Yatra, consumers overwhelmingly indicated the latter; the word Yatra remains vernacular, and not proprietary. The focus of this type of approach prevents trademark law from being used as a means of rewarding marketers for their marketing ability, as well as instilling confidence in businesses and those who wish to start new businesses by allowing them to continue to utilize the honest and descriptive use of everyday language. The case underlines a crucial lesson for brand owners: consumer understanding evolves slowly, and courts will not rewrite meaning merely because a brand has grown large.
When Trademark Protection Starts Harming the Market:
The particular objective of the Trademark System is that to prevent businesses from being “ripped off” by competitors who may/will try to copy their brands. However, issues arise when trademark enforcement’s primary purpose switches from preventing confusion to denying the use of commonly and honestly used language. For example, in the travel and event markets, many words (such as “Yatra”) serve more than just to create brand awareness. These types of words also assist consumers in understanding the product or service being offered.
When companies create fences around commonly-used words to protect their trademark rights, it engenders a market distortion consequence for smaller businesses, who will now struggle with how to express their products/services naturally and will be forced to use unnatural expressions to describe their business. In this way, the market confusion increases and the barriers to entry for new businesses rise. When the Yatra trademark case was before the Court, the exclusivity of that particular trademark would create a situation where other competing companies could not describe their services in the most logical way.
The Courts are aware of the potential for this type of issue to occur and have the responsibility to balance the rights of business owners (the trademark holder) with the rights of the public (the consumer). The refusal of the Courts to grant monopolistic control over the Yatra trademark was based on the Courts’ desire to prevent trademarks from being used as market-blocking tools.
Relevant Case Laws:
Yatra Online Ltd. V. Mach Conferences and Events Ltd. (2025)
Reaffirmed that descriptive terms cannot be monopolised without proof of secondary meaning.
ITC Ltd. V. Nestle India Ltd.
Clarified that common or descriptive expression must remain available to competitors
Cardila Healthcare Ltd. V. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Emphasized consumer perception as central to trademark disputes
Practical Implication:
Startups replying on descriptive branding face higher enforcement risks.
Over-aggressive trademark enforcement may invite judicial pushback
Business should invest in distinctive elements (logos, coined terms) rather than common words
The judgement protects honest descriptive use across industries like travel, hospitality and events
Conclusion
Trademark law endeavours a balance between protecting the brand and allowing the public to use quotidian words freely. Businesses work hard to establish visibility and awareness in the minds of consumers using well-known names, but there are limits on how far businesses can go to protect their brand. Courts base trademark protection on consumer perceptions of brands rather than on the size and scope of the business itself. In this instance, the court prevents a business from obtaining complete rights to a common term; this helps safeguard the ability for fair competition. It allows all companies the right to use descriptive terms for their goods and services. Companies looking to be successful must create a brand that represents the uniqueness of their product/service rather than attempting to control access to common language. Furthermore, for trademark practitioners, the case illustrates that part of developing an effective trademark strategy includes knowing when to back off as well as knowing what to protect as a trademark. Ultimately, the court’s decision upholds the balance that trademark law seeks to establish between protecting Goodwill and not converting the use of a common language into private property.
Author:–Tanishq Chaudhary, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us at support@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
Endnotes:
- Trade Marks Act 1999, ss 9(1)(b), 9(1)(c) and proviso to s 9.
- Yatra Online Ltd v Mach Conferences and Events Ltd 2025 SCC OnLine Del 5238; (2025) DLT 412; CS (COMM) 1099/2024 (Delhi High Court).
- Cadila Healthcare Ltd v Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd (2001) 5 SCC 73.
- ITC Ltd v Nestlé India Ltd 2017 SCC On-line Del 8078.
- Marico Ltd v Agro Tech Foods Ltd 2010 (44) PTC 736 (Del).
- McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, J Thomas McCarthy (5th edn, Thomson Reuters).
- Dev Gangjee, Relocating the Law of Trade Marks (Cambridge University Press 2012).
- SCC Online Blog, ‘Descriptive Trademarks and the Doctrine of Secondary Meaning under Indian Law’.
- Live Law, ‘Delhi High Court on Descriptive Marks and Consumer Perception in Trademark Disputes’.
