Court rules in favor of FreeElective Network, barring Matrimony.com from using a deceptively similar trademark for matchmaking services.
In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has ruled in favor of M/s FreeElective Network Private Limited, the proprietor of the trademark 'Jodi365', against M/s Matrimony.com Limited, who launched a competing service under the trademark 'Jodii'. The court found that 'Jodii' was deceptively similar to the well-established 'Jodi365' trademark, which could lead to confusion among consumers.
The bench, comprising Justice P. Velmurugan and Justice K. Govindarajan Thilakavadi, overturned a previous decision by a lower court, which had dismissed FreeElective Network's claims of trademark infringement and passing off. The High Court emphasized that the term 'Jodi', being a prominent feature of 'Jodi365', had acquired significant goodwill and reputation since its inception in 2009, and thus warranted protection from deceptive similarity.
The court observed that the appellant had been using 'Jodi365' continuously and had built a substantial reputation in the matchmaking industry, both domestically and internationally. In contrast, Matrimony.com launched 'Jodii' in 2021, a move the court deemed likely to cause confusion given the phonetic and visual similarities between the two trademarks.
Furthermore, the court rejected Matrimony.com's defense that the term 'Jodi' was common to trade, stating that there was insufficient evidence to support this claim. The court also noted that any arguments regarding the validity of the trademark should have been pursued through rectification proceedings, which Matrimony.com had failed to initiate.
While the court granted an injunction preventing Matrimony.com from using the 'Jodii' trademark, it dismissed FreeElective Network's claim for damages amounting to Rs. 1 crore due to the lack of oral evidence substantiating the financial losses.
This judgment reinforces the legal protections afforded to trademark owners against competitors who might adopt deceptively similar marks, ensuring that consumers are not misled and that the integrity of established brands is maintained.
Bottom Line :
Trademark law - Prior user of registered trademark entitled to protection against deceptive similarity, Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act does not mandate separate proof of distinctiveness of sub-elements in a composite mark.
Statutory provision(s): Trade Marks Act, 1999 Sections 17, 27, 28, 29, 134, 135
