Supreme Court Rejects MakeMyTrip’s Trademark Suit Against Google
Travel booking giant MakeMyTrip (MMT) suffered a setback in its five-year-long legal battle against Google and Booking.com
Supreme Court Rejects MakeMyTrip’s Trademark Suit Against Google
Travel booking giant MakeMyTrip (MMT) suffered a setback in its five-year-long legal battle against Google and Booking.com. The Supreme Court of India dismissed MMT’s appeal regarding trademark infringement through Google Ads.
The dispute arose from MMT’s claim that Booking.com used MMT’s trademarks (“MakeMyTrip” and “MMT”) as keywords in Google Ads to display sponsored links for Booking.com whenever users searched for “MakeMyTrip.” MMT argued that this practice diverted traffic and business to its competitor.
The Supreme Court bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud ruled in favour of Google and Booking.com. The Court reasoned that Booking.com using MMT’s trademarks as keywords would not create confusion among users.
Chief Justice Chandrachud stated that there is no possibility of confusion. If someone intends to work on MakeMyTrip, then there is no reason to log into Booking.com. He emphasised that this issue is not new (res integra) and clarified that Booking.com is not using the plaintiff’s mark.
In December 2021, MMT obtained a temporary injunction from the Delhi High Court, preventing Google and Booking.com from using MMT’s trademarks as keywords in Google Ads. However, a division bench of the Delhi High Court reversed this decision in December 2022, allowing Google and Booking.com to resume the practice.
Booking.com purchased the keyword “MakeMyTrip” on Google Ads in 2019 with the highest bid, triggering MMT’s legal action. MMT issued cease-and-desist notices to Booking.com in 2019 and 2020, objecting to their use of MakeMyTrip’s trademarks in Google Ads.
The Supreme Court’s dismissal leaves the issue with some ambiguity. MMT’s lawyers sought clarification on whether the judgement impacts a separate motion hearing before a single judge. The Chief Justice indicated the bench would address this concern.