Bombay High Court Restrains GetShaadi.com For Infringing Shaadi.com Trademark, Imposes ₹25 Lakh Costs

In a judgment delivered on January 6, 2026, Justice Arif S Doctor ruled in favour of People Interactive, which operates the popular matrimonial platform “Shaadi.com.” The court held that the rival operator's adoption and use of “getshaadi.com” for identical matrimonial and matchmaking services violated People Interactive's trademark rights and amounted to passing off.

Holding that a clear case of trademark infringement had been established, the Court observed, “It is clear that the Plaintiff's entire trade mark “Shaadi.com” has infact been subsumed into the impugned mark and is clearly the dominant and essential feature of the impugned mark “getshaadi.com.” Thus, the distinction is illusory, and confusion and deception are inevitable.”

People Interactive told the Court that it has been operating its matrimonial services under the “Shaadi.com” brand since 2000 and has built extensive goodwill and reputation through long and continuous use. The company stated that it discovered the disputed website in 2013 and found that it was offering identical services under a deceptively similar name.

According to People Interactive, the rival operators had not only adopted the domain name “getshaadi.com” but had also embedded “Shaadi.com” as a meta-tag and keyword on their website. This, it was argued, resulted in substantial diversion of internet traffic meant for People Interactive's platform and was a clear attempt to exploit the goodwill associated with the “Shaadi.com” mark.

After examining the rival marks, the Court found that the registered mark “Shaadi.com” was wholly incorporated into the disputed name “getshaadi.com,” rendering the two deceptively similar.

“The addition of the word “get” does not in any manner materially distinguish the impugned mark “getshaadi.com” from the Plaintiff's registered trademark “Shaadi.com”,” the Court said.

The court held that the use of the disputed domain name was likely to cause confusion and deception, particularly since both parties were offering identical matrimonial services.

Noting that a significant volume of traffic to the disputed website had been diverted from “www.shaadi.com” due to the unauthorized use of People Interactive's mark, the Court observed, “It is clear, therefore, that the entire intent of the Defendants was to divert the internet traffic from the Plaintiff's website to that of the Defendant No.1 & 2 and thereby trade upon the Plaintiff's goodwill and reputation, apart from dilution of the Plaintiff's mark and erosion of its distinctive character and goodwill.”

The Court also accepted People Interactive's argument that the “Shaadi.com” mark had acquired immense goodwill and recognition over decades of use and satisfied the statutory requirements of a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It noted that there was nothing on record to suggest that the adoption of disputed mark was honest or bona fide.

On the issue of costs, the Court observed that under the Commercial Courts Act, successful parties are ordinarily entitled to costs and that the conduct of the parties is a relevant consideration. It noted that the rival operators' failure to appear and contest the proceedings compelled People Interactive to incur unnecessary legal expenses.

Accordingly, the Court permanently restrained the rival operators from using “getshaadi.com” or any other mark deceptively similar to “Shaadi.com” and imposed costs of Rs 25 lakh on them.

Case Title: People Interactive India Private Limited v. Ammanamanchi Lalitha Rani & Ors.

Citation: 2026 LLBiz HC (BOM) 25

Case Number: Commercial IP Suit No. 225/2015

For Plaintiff: Advocates Yatin Khochare and Preeta Panthaki instructed by Krishna & Saurastri Associates LLP