The Bombay High Court has ruled in favour of Anupam Mittal, founder of Shaadi.com, in a domain name and trademark infringement case, imposing ₹25 lakh in costs on the opposing parties.

The court held that the disputed domain names were deliberately created to exploit the reputation, goodwill, and consumer trust built by Shaadi.com over more than two decades in India and overseas.

Court Finds Clear Case of Cybersquatting and Bad Faith

In its judgment, the court observed that the contested domains were deceptively similar to the Shaadi.com trademark and were registered with prior knowledge of the brand’s strong market presence.

The court concluded that:

• The domains were intended to mislead users

• The conduct amounted to cybersquatting

• The registration and use showed bad faith intent

The bench rejected claims that the domains were being used for legitimate or unrelated purposes, noting that even passive holding of confusingly similar domains can:

• Dilute brand identity

• Divert traffic

• Cause consumer confusion

Such activity, the court said, cannot be considered bona fide business conduct, particularly when the brand involved enjoys wide recognition and registered trademark protection.

Shaadi.com Recognised as a “Well-Known Trademark”

Importantly, the Bombay High Court recognised Shaadi.com as a “well-known trademark” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

This designation extends protection beyond the company’s core business category, strengthening Shaadi.com’s ability to act against misuse across digital platforms and domain spaces.

₹25 Lakh Costs Imposed as a Deterrent

While imposing costs of ₹25 lakh, the court emphasised that:

• Domain misuse wastes judicial time

• It imposes avoidable legal and financial burdens on legitimate businesses

• Monetary penalties are necessary to deter repeat offenders

Legal experts say the size of the penalty reflects a harsher judicial stance against digital brand abuse and signals growing recognition of online brand value in India’s digital economy.

Anupam Mittal Reacts, Takes Aim at Big Tech

Following the ruling, Mittal addressed the decision in a LinkedIn post, calling it a rare but crucial stand against domain squatters and digital impersonation.

He said brands are built over decades through sustained investment and trust, yet are increasingly vulnerable to copycats exploiting lookalike domains and brand recall.

Mittal also criticised major global technology companies — including Google, Apple, Amazon, Meta and Microsoft — arguing that their search and advertising ecosystems have enabled what he termed “free-riding” on established trademarks by monetising brand keywords and deceptive domains.

In a separate post on X (formerly Twitter), he described the verdict as a strong signal that IP enforcement in India is becoming more robust, noting that the ruling has wider relevance for Indian startups and internet-first companies facing similar challenges.

Why This Ruling Matters

The decision is expected to:

• Strengthen protection for Indian digital brands

• Set a precedent against domain abuse and impersonation

• Reinforce that trademark rights extend firmly into the online domain space

For founders and digital platforms, the verdict underlines the importance of trademark registration, proactive monitoring, and active enforcement as online competition and misuse continue to rise.