Info Edge (India) v. Shailesh Gupta — "Naukri.com" Trademark Case
Citation & Court
Info Edge (India) Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. v. Shailesh Gupta & Anr., (2002) ILR 1 Delhi 220, Delhi High Court.
Need help with this?
Facing an examination report, a show-cause hearing or an opposition? See our trademark objection reply and opposition service. We are a trademark consultant in Ahmedabad working with businesses across Gujarat.
The Dispute
Info Edge adopted "NAUKRI.COM" in 1997 for its online job-search portal. In 1999, a defendant registered similar domain names, including "NAUKARI.COM," for an identical business. The defendant argued that "Naukri" — the Hindi word for "job" — was purely generic and descriptive of the very service being offered, and so could not function as a trademark at all.
What the Court Held
The Delhi High Court disagreed. Even though "Naukri" is a literal translation of "job," the plaintiff's distinctive use of the Hindi word rendered in English script, continuously since 1997, had made it distinctive of the plaintiff's services and given it secondary meaning in the minds of the public. The Court recognised the plaintiff's established reputation and granted an injunction against the defendant's confusingly similar domain name.
How to Use This in Your Reply
This is one of the strongest available citations for a successful acquired-distinctiveness claim — pair it with Marico v. Agro Tech (Losorb) to show a client or an examiner both outcomes of the same test: what evidence and duration of use actually persuaded a court, versus what didn't. Particularly useful where the mark is a vernacular-language word rendered in Roman script for a business in that same field.
Key takeaway: A translated or vernacular descriptive word can still become distinctive through sustained, prominent, source-identifying use.
Facing this exact situation in your own filing?
Send us your examination report, opposition notice, or hearing date — we'll tell you how this applies.