The Supreme Court on Friday asked Matrimony.com and FreeElective Network, the company behind “Jodi365”, to explore an amicable settlement in their long-running trademark dispute over the use of “Jodii” for a matchmaking app. The development came after the apex court indicated that it was not inclined to interfere with the recent Madras High Court order restraining Matrimony.com from using the disputed mark.
A bench comprising Justices P S Narasimha and Alok Aradhe kept Matrimony.com’s plea pending instead of dismissing it immediately. The move gives both sides an opportunity to discuss a possible resolution and avoid further litigation over the branding of the matchmaking platform.
Matrimony.com offers to rename Jodii app
During the hearing, Matrimony.com proposed changing the name of its app from “Jodii” to “Jodi Matrimony”. The company told the court that an immediate shutdown of the application could disrupt its existing business and affect users who are already using the platform.
The Supreme Court asked the parties to discuss the proposal. The bench indicated that the matter could be taken up again if the companies fail to reach an agreement.
◆ Matrimony.com has proposed the name “Jodi Matrimony”
◆ The company has offered not to press its pending application seeking registration of “Jodi” as a standalone trademark
◆ The Supreme Court has kept the plea pending to allow settlement discussions
How the Jodii trademark dispute started
The dispute goes back to October 2021, when Matrimony.com launched its “Jodii” mobile application for matchmaking services. FreeElective Network, which operates “Jodi365”, objected to the name and subsequently issued a cease-and-desist notice.
FreeElective claimed that it had been using “Jodi365” since 2009 and had registered the composite device mark in 2010. According to the company, the use of the phonetically similar “Jodii” for similar matchmaking services could confuse customers and create an association between the two platforms.
Matrimony.com took a different position. It argued that FreeElective’s trademark registration covered the composite “Jodi365” mark and did not provide exclusive rights over the individual word “Jodi”.
The company also argued that “Jodi”, meaning a couple or pair in several Indian languages, is descriptive in the context of matchmaking services and is used by various businesses and platforms.
Madras High Court backs Jodi365
The legal battle took a significant turn this month when a Division Bench of the Madras High Court overturned an earlier decision in favour of Matrimony.com.
A single judge had dismissed FreeElective’s suit in July 2022, holding that while “Jodi365” had acquired distinctiveness as a composite mark, the word “Jodi” itself remained descriptive and non-distinctive.
However, on August 11, 2026, the Division Bench of Justices P Velmurugan and K Govindarajan Thilakavadi reached a different conclusion. The court held that the use of “Jodii” for similar matrimonial services could create confusion among consumers because of its similarity with “Jodi365”.
The High Court restrained Matrimony.com from using “Jodii” or any other deceptively similar mark. It also directed the company to surrender materials bearing the disputed mark for destruction.
What Matrimony.com argued before the Supreme Court
Before the Supreme Court, Matrimony.com’s lawyers challenged the High Court’s reasoning and highlighted the scope of FreeElective’s trademark registration.
The company argued that “Jodi365” was registered under Classes 35, 38 and 41, covering areas including advertising, telecommunications and education. It pointed out that there was no registration under Class 45, which covers matrimonial and matchmaking services.
Matrimony.com also maintained that “Jodi” is a commonly understood word for a couple or pair and therefore should not be monopolised by one business.
The company further told the Supreme Court that it would not pursue its pending application to register “Jodi” as a standalone trademark, as part of its position in the dispute.
Jodi365 points to prior use and consumer confusion
FreeElective, meanwhile, relied on its long-standing use of “Jodi365”. The company said it had continuously used the mark since 2009 and had taken action shortly after the launch of “Jodii”.
It also relied on instances of alleged consumer confusion that were presented before the Madras High Court. The company’s argument is that similarity between the names becomes particularly important because both platforms operate in the matchmaking space.
The Madras High Court had earlier noted that FreeElective had built reputation and goodwill around its mark through years of use. It also found the marks sufficiently similar to create a likelihood of confusion.
Supreme Court gives settlement a chance
For now, the Supreme Court has not delivered a final decision on Matrimony.com’s challenge. Instead, it has provided the two sides an opportunity to find a commercial solution.
The court’s approach could help both companies avoid a prolonged trademark battle while addressing concerns around brand identity, existing users and consumer confusion.
If the settlement talks succeed, Matrimony.com’s proposed “Jodi Matrimony” branding could provide a way for the company to continue its matchmaking business while reducing the similarity at the centre of the dispute.
If no agreement is reached, the Supreme Court may hear the matter again and decide Matrimony.com’s challenge against the Madras High Court ruling.
The dispute also highlights the growing importance of brand protection in India’s digital matchmaking and dating industry, where similar names can potentially create confusion among users and raise complex questions around trademark rights.
