https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306089 The HC refused injunction relief in a domain name dispute because shaadi was held to be a generic, commonly descriptive term for matrimonial services, and the plaintiff failed to prove acquired secondary meaning in the public mind. Extensive use, sales, and promotion were insufficient without cogent evidence of distinctiveness. The court also treated shaadi.com as an Internet address rather than a source-identifying mark, found the difference between shaadi.com and secondshaadi.com sufficient in context, and held that the defendants' use was bona fide descriptive use, with no passing off or deceit shown. Delay and prior knowledge further supported acquiescence, so the motion was dismissed. en-us Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 09 Jan 2023 20:34:53 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306089 The HC refused injunction relief in a domain name dispute because shaadi was held to be a generic, commonly descriptive term for matrimonial services, and the plaintiff failed to prove acquired secondary meaning in the public mind. Extensive use, sales, and promotion were insufficient without cogent evidence of distinctiveness. The court also treated shaadi.com as an Internet address rather than a source-identifying mark, found the difference between shaadi.com and secondshaadi.com sufficient in context, and held that the defendants' use was bona fide descriptive use, with no passing off or deceit shown. Delay and prior knowledge further supported acquiescence, so the motion was dismissed. Case-Laws Indian Laws Wed, 14 Sep 2016 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=306089