The Delhi High Court on May 29, 2026, granted an ex parte ad interim injunction restraining M/s MakeMyIndiaTrip — a travel services website operating at www.makemyindiatrip.com — from using the name, domain, email IDs, and social media accounts bearing the impugned mark, finding that it was deceptively similar to the registered trademark of MakeMyTrip (India) Private Limited. Justice Jyoti Singh held that the mere addition of the word “India” was insufficient to distinguish the infringing mark from the plaintiff’s well-established registered trademark.
The court held that these actions constitute infringement under Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC within two weeks. The matter is listed before the court on October 6, 2026.
Court’s Finding: Justice Jyoti Singh found that the plaintiff had established a prima facie case on multiple counts. The court noted that the rival trademarks were visually, structurally, and conceptually similar; the services offered by both parties were identical; and the consumer base overlapped entirely. The court observed that any person encountering both marks would be susceptible to initial interest confusion, point-of-sale confusion, and post-sale confusion.
Delhi HC further found that the adoption of the impugned marks appeared to be in bad faith, intended to create a false affiliation with the plaintiff’s registered mark. It held that the plaintiff’s formidable goodwill and reputation—built over more than 26 years—would be diluted and eroded if the defendant’s use of the impugned marks were allowed to continue. The balance of convenience, the court concluded, lay firmly in favour of the plaintiff (MakeMyTrip), who would suffer irreparable harm without the injunction.
How the infringement came to light: MakeMyTrip discovered the alleged infringement in the first week of March 2026 during a routine internet check. The investigation revealed that the defendant had adopted the name “MakeMyIndiaTrip” and was operating a website closely modeling the structure, presentation, and service format of MakeMyTrip’s platform. The defendant’s site offered international and domestic travel packages, group tours, car rentals, travel itineraries, and booking services in a manner strikingly similar to the plaintiff’s. The defendant was also found to be actively advertising on Facebook, Instagram, and YouTube under the impugned marks.
Procedural aspects: The suit was filed as CS(COMM) 650/2026 along with several interlocutory applications. Justice Jyoti Singh disposed of all ancillary applications at the first hearing itself:
Why this matters: The injunction against MakeMyIndiaTrip reflects the Delhi High Court’s increasingly strict approach to trademark protection in the digital environment. Days earlier, the court issued a significant ruling in a dispute between Hindware and Google regarding the use of trademarked terms as advertising keywords.
On May 22, 2026, a separate bench led by Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered a landmark verdict in the long-running Hindware Ltd. v. Grohe India Pvt Ltd & Ors. (CS(COMM) 591/2017) dispute. The court permanently restrained Google LLC and Google India from using the registered trademark “HINDWARE” as advertising keywords, ruling that Google could not avoid responsibility for enabling infringement through its keyword advertising tools. It ordered Google to pay Rs 30 lakh in damages and permanently barred the company from using “HINDWARE” and its variants as advertising keywords.
The court found that invisible keyword use qualifies as “use in advertising” under Section 29(6)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It also determined that Google’s active involvement in suggesting keywords, running advertising auctions, and monetising trademark-triggered searches disqualifies it from the protections usually granted to neutral intermediaries.
Also read:
