Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the device mark "Jodi365" with a valid registration and continuous use since 2009 (!) (!) . The core issue is whether the element "Jodi" in the mark "Jodi365" has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning (!) (!) . "Jodi" is a common, descriptive term meaning "pair" or "couple," and is considered non-distinctive inherently (!) (!) . Evidence shows the mark has gained reputation and recognition, but this alone may not establish secondary meaning over the descriptive element "Jodi" (!) (!) . The mark "Jodi365" as a whole is distinctive, but the element "Jodi" remains non-distinctive and cannot be monopolized separately (!) (!) . The defendant’s use of "Jodii" is not deceptively similar enough to infringe, especially since "Jodi" is a common, descriptive term used broadly in the trade (!) (!) . The defendant’s mark "Jodii" and use of "Jodi" are not likely to cause confusion or deception in the market (!) . The defense of "publici juris" (common public domain) is not established due to widespread use but ultimately deemed unnecessary to decide (!) (!) . The claim for infringement and passing off is rejected because the marks are not deceptively similar, and "Jodi" is a non-distinctive, descriptive term (!) . As infringement and passing off are not proven, damages claim is dismissed (!) (!) . The suit is ultimately dismissed; the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over the non-distinctive element "Jodi" (!) .

FreeElective Network Private Limited vs Matrimony. com. Limited

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Mad) 703

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
FreeElective Network Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Matrimony. com. Limited – Respondent

Advocate Appeared:
For the Plaintiff :R. Sathish Kumar, Advocate.
For the Defendant :P.S. Raman, Senior Advocate for M/S. Arun, C. Mohan, Advocates.

Judgement Key Points

Plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the device mark "Jodi365" with a valid registration and continuous use since 2009 (!) (!) .
The core issue is whether the element "Jodi" in the mark "Jodi365" has acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning (!) (!) .
"Jodi" is a common, descriptive term meaning "pair" or "couple," and is considered non-distinctive inherently (!) (!) .
Evidence shows the mark has gained reputation and recognition, but this alone may not establish secondary meaning over the descriptive element "Jodi" (!) (!) .
The mark "Jodi365" as a whole is distinctive, but the element "Jodi" remains non-distinctive and cannot be monopolized separately (!) (!) .
The defendant’s use of "Jodii" is not deceptively similar enough to infringe, especially since "Jodi" is a common, descriptive term used broadly in the trade (!) (!) .
The defendant’s mark "Jodii" and use of "Jodi" are not likely to cause confusion or deception in the market (!) .
The defense of "publici juris" (common public domain) is not established due to widespread use but ultimately deemed unnecessary to decide (!) (!) .
The claim for infringement and passing off is rejected because the marks are not deceptively similar, and "Jodi" is a non-distinctive, descriptive term (!) .
As infringement and passing off are not proven, damages claim is dismissed (!) (!) .
The suit is ultimately dismissed; the Plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over the non-distinctive element "Jodi" (!) .

JUDGMENT :

(Prayer: The suit is filed under Order VII Rule 1 CPC and Order IV Rule 1 of O.S. Rules R/W Sections 27, 28, 29,134, and 135 of the Trademarks Act,1999 praying for a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself, its directors, men, servants, agents, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner infringing the Plaintiff's registered trademark Jodi365 under No.1971072 in Class 99 and other registered trademarks by using a deceptively similar trademark Jodii or any other trademark deceptively similar to the Plaintiff's registered trademark or in any other manner whatsoever; (b) a permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, by itself, its directors, men, servants, agents, representatives or anyone claiming through or under them from in any manner passing off and/or enabling others to pass off the Defendant's services of software/website/mobile applications or any other Internet-related services or offline matchmaking services under the trademark Jodii as and for the Plaintiff's services by using, offering for sale, displaying, printing, advertising their services with a trademark Jodii or any other trademark identical or deceptiv

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2022 Supreme(Mad) 703

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHYFreeElective Network Private Limited – AppellantVersusMatrimony. com. Limited – Respondent

Cases Referred (8)

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY
FreeElective Network Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Matrimony. com. Limited – Respondent