Shaadi.com couldn’t stop SecondShaadi.com — because “shaadi” (Hindi for marriage) is a generic word no one can own. The Bombay High Court’s reasoning is a crisp lesson on generic marks, domain names, and even the humble “.com”.
The dispute
In People Interactive (I) Pvt Ltd v. Vivek Pahwa, the Bombay High Court refused an interim injunction against SECONDSHAADI.COM in a suit by the proprietors of SHAADI.COM / SHADI.COM.
The plaintiffs run the well-known matrimonial site Shaadi.com, registered SHAADI.COM / SHADI.COM (claiming use since 1996), plus Shaadi Times, Shaadi Point etc. — but those registrations disclaim exclusivity over “Shaadi.” The defendant launched SECONDSHAADI.COM in 2006 for people seeking to remarry.
The arguments
Plaintiffs: a domain name has the characteristics of a trademark; through extensive use, SHAADI.COM acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning; “shaadi” is the essential feature of their mark, associated only with them for matrimonial services; and the defendant’s adoption was not bona fide, riding their success.
Defendant: “shaadi” is generic and commonly descriptive — “words of the common tongue are not to be allowed to be monopolized.” Many rival marks use “shaadi,” and the plaintiffs’ own registrations disclaim exclusivity over it.
The court’s reasoning
The court held “shaadi” is generic — meaning only marriage/wedding — and used by a long list of rivals. That’s “precisely the risk the law says an adopter of a generic or commonly descriptive expression must expect to suffer.” Quoting settled principle:
“where a trader adopts words in common use for his trade name, some risk of confusion is inevitable. But that risk must be run, or else the first user would be allowed to unfairly monopolise the words. In matters of this nature, courts accept even the smallest differences sufficient to avert confusion.”
And bluntly: “There can be no restraint against the use of general words,” rejecting the tactic of taking a generic word, calling it “prominent” or “essential,” and then claiming an exclusivity it could never have on its own.
Notably, the court also held Top-Level Domains (.com, .net, .in, etc.) are themselves generic — every domain needs a TLD suffix, so they have no distinctiveness and no one can claim exclusivity in any TLD.
Since the defendant placed “second” prominently above “shaadi.com” — a sufficient variation — the injunction was refused.
The takeaway
The judgment is a clean statement: no monopoly over generic/common words (barring arbitrary use, like Apple for computers). Generic words are the least distinctive marks; register one and confusion is inevitable. And generic domain names are highly unlikely to win protection.
The takeaways
- Generic words can’t be monopolised — “shaadi” for matrimony is common to trade.
- Adopters of common words accept confusion risk — small differences suffice to distinguish.
- You can’t relabel a generic word “essential” to claim exclusivity it never had.
- TLDs are generic too — no exclusivity in .com, .net, .in and the like.
Frequently asked questions
Can I protect a generic domain name as a trademark? It’s highly unlikely — generic/descriptive words like “shaadi” can’t be monopolised, and courts accept small variations (like “second”) as enough to avoid confusion.
Why couldn’t Shaadi.com stop SecondShaadi.com? Because “shaadi” is generic (meaning marriage), used by many rivals, and even the plaintiffs’ registrations disclaimed exclusivity over it — so “second” was a sufficient distinguishing variation.
Are top-level domains like .com distinctive? No — the court held TLDs are entirely generic, with no distinctiveness and no possible exclusivity.
When can a common word be a trademark? Only in exceptional, arbitrary use unrelated to the goods — like “Apple” for computers — or where genuine secondary meaning is proven.
Legislation referred to
- The Trade Marks Act, 1999