1. The Plaintiff seeks to restrain Defendant Nos. 1 to 4 (collectively, “the contesting Defendants”) from using the domain name secondshaadi.com in any manner, including as part of the domain name for their web-based matrimonial services. The Plaintiff also seeks to restrain the contesting Defendants from “passing off” their website as that of the Plaintiff. The final relief sought is to restrain Defendant No. 5, a webhost and a domain name registrar, from hosting the contesting Defendants’ website, and to direct it to de-register or terminate the contesting Defendants’ domain name registration.

2. When the suit was first filed, there was a complaint that the contesting Defendants had used articles and material from the Plaintiff’s website. This has been resolved since. Both sides accept this.

3. The Plaintiff belongs to the People Group of Companies. It owns several well-known websites, brands and trade marks. Among these are the marks Shaadi.com and Shadi.com. The 1st Defendant is registrant of the domain name www.secondshaadi.com. Defendant Nos. 1, 3 and 4 are Directors of the 2nd Defendant. The website is operated through the 2nd Defendant.

4. In 1996, one Siddharth Mehta, the Plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title adopted the mark Shaadi.com in relation to online matrimonial services. The Plaintiff acquired Mehta’s rights in the mark and the domain name under an Assignment Deed dated 9th October 2001. From that time, the Plaintiff has used the mark and domain name to provide online matrimonial and matchmaking services. The device and label mark SHAADI.COM Plaint, Exhibit “E2”, p. 91 and the word mark SHADI.COM Plaint, Exhibit “E4”, p. 95 were registered in 2004 in Class 42. The Plaintiff’s other word marks SHAADI.COM Plaint, Exhibit “E1”, p. 90 and SHADI.COM Plaint, Exhibit “E3”, p. 94 (not used by the Plaintiff) were subsequently registered in 2009 in Class 45. The registration certificates of all these marks claim user since 1996. Apart from its online services, the Plaintiff has bricks-and-mortar establishments for similar services offered in person. It also has registrations for the marks Shaadi.com Centre, Plaint, Exhibit “E5”, p. 97 Shaadi Times, Plaint, Exhibit “E6”, p. 100 Shaadi Point, Plaint, Exhibit “E7”, p. 102 Shaadi Mobile Plaint, Exhibit “E8”, p. 104 and Shaadi TV. Plaint, Exhibit “E9”, p. 106 Shaadi Times carries a disclaimer of non-exclusivity over the word Shaadi.

5. Exhibit “C” to the Plaint lists the Plaintiff’s annual worldwide sales and promotional expenses under the mark Shaadi.com since 2000 Plaint, p. 58 These are substantial. Its gross revenue increased from approximately Rs. 32 Lakhs in 2000–2001 to about Rs. 141 crores in 2014–2015. Promotional expenses for 2014–2015 stood at Rs. 45 crores. Some promotional material is on record. Plaint, Exhibit “B” p. 54; Plaint, Exhibit “D”, p. 59. The Plaintiff claims it has 20 million registered users for its various services, and that since January 2007, its primary website www.shaadi.com has had 12.4 billion recorded visitors. The Plaintiff has won many awards. Therefore, the Plaintiff claims that its services under this mark and domain name have acquired substantial goodwill and repute.

6. The contesting Defendants launched their website at the domain name www.SecondShaadi.com on 25th January 2006. This website caters to those seeking to marry again; hence the name. The contesting Defendants’ website has a very different market position from that of the Plaintiff. It caters to a much more select group, not quite as large as the Plaintiff’s. The contesting Defendants have used the mark secondshaadi.com for almost eight years. They say they have gained much popularity within their segment. They also claim to have spent much money on advertising and promotion. They market and promote their platform on social media too.

7. The Plaintiff says that in July 2007 it came across the 1st Defendant’s www.secondshadi.com. On 27th July 2007, the Plaintiff sent the 1st