IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
MANISH PITALE, J.
PhonePe Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Resilient Innovations Private Limited – Respondent
Interim Application (L) No. 25032 of 2021, Commercial I.P. Suit No. 160 of 2022
Decided On : 06-04-2023
Trademarks Act, 1999 - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 – trademark - Contentions - Restricting its claim - Whether applicant/plaintiff has made out a strong case for grant of interim reliefs - Held, It would be relevant to note that defendant has been able to place on record material to show distinction between nature of services provided by rival parties - Material indicates that although services of defendant are also made person is able to satisfy standard of credit worthiness demanded by defendant - This is because defendant’s service is about deferred payment or postponement of payment by customer - Services provided by plaintiff using its registered trademark PhonePe also available on mobile applications pertain to a payment gateway through UPI and other interfaces - At this stage this Court is unable to agree with plaintiff that gullible or uneducated persons or even educated and aware customers would be confused between services of rival parties – Petition Dismissed.
ORDER :
1. This is not the first occasion on which the rival parties have locked horns against each other before a court of law. The applicant/petitioner herein, relying upon its registered trademark ‘PhonePe’ and its variants, initiated a suit before the Delhi High Court, alleging that the defendant had infringed upon its registered trademarks by using the mark ‘BharatPe’. The application for interim reliefs filed therein was dismissed, which was later confirmed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, as result of withdrawal of appeal and the suit is pending.
2. Even before this Court, the plaintiff filed an earlier suit, bearing Commercial IP Suit (L) No. 24136 of 2021, against the defendant for having used allegedly infringing trademark postpe. The said suit was withdrawn on 22.10.2021, with conditional liberty granted by this Court. It was specifically recorded that the contentions of the defendant were kept open and that the defendant could also rely upon the plaint in the said suit, in order to oppose any fresh suit or interim application that may be filed by the plaintiff herein. The defendant raised a challenge before the Division Bench of this Court, which failed and a petition filed there against before the Supreme Court was also dismissed.
3. It is in this backdrop that the plaintiff filed the present suit and application for interim reliefs. The plaintiff adopted the trademark ‘PhonePe’ in the year 2014. It applied for registration of ‘PhonePe’ and its variants before the Registrar of Trademarks. There is no dispute about the fact that the plaintiff holds registration for the word mark ‘PhonePe’ and its variants including ^^is** written in Devanagari Hindi script. Such registrations date back to March 2016 and onwards. The plaintiff under the said registered trademarks provides financial services to its clients through mobile phone application, facilitating financial transactions amongst consumers and merchants on online and offline payment modes like Unified Payment Interface (UPI), QR Codes or through debit and credit cards. It is the case of the plaintiff that its services enable acceptance of payments for products and services through the PhonePe application. Due to the ease of using the said service provided by the plaintiff, soon after its launch, the PhonePe app of the plaintiff became immensely popular and by the time the suit was filed, there were more than 350 million registered users of the PhonePe app with a large market share.
4. It is also stated that the UPI transactions processed through PhonePe increased to about 975.53 million in February, 2021, thereby indicating the immense goodwill earned by the PhonePe app of the plaintiff over a short period of time. The plaintiff placed on record the turnover figures starting from the year 2015, indicating that from 19.13 lakhs in the year 2015-2016, it increased to as much as 37,176 lakhs in the year 2019-20. It was also brought to the notice of this Court that the plaintiff spent about Rs. 1,01,664 lakhs towards advertisement expenses. The plaintiff also entered into partnerships and tie-ups with various brands in the business of e-commerce like Flipkart, Myntra, Swiggy, Zomato and others. The off-line merchant partners of the plaintiff are stated to be Vishal Mega Mart, Spencer’s Star India Bazar, Croma, KFC and others.
5. In order to emphasize that the aforesaid registered trademarks of the plaintiff have been popular in the public domain, it is specifically stated that the plaintiff sponsored IPL 2019 and World Cup 2019, along with sponsorship for IPL 2021. It is also stated that the plaintiff with its registered trademark ‘PhonePe’ has a large scale presence in the social media platforms including Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, Youtube, Linked-In and others. The plaintiff also has its own website www.phonepe.com and a blog www.blog.phonepe.com. The plaintiff has also given details of the awards given to it from the year 2018 onwards. On this basis, th
Amritdhara Pharmacy vs. Satya Deo Gupta
F. Hoffmann-La Roche Co. Ltd. vs. Geoffrey Manner Co. (P) Ltd. (1969) 2 SCC 716
Ruston and Hornsby Ltd. vs. The Zamindara Engineering Co. (1969) 2 SCC 727
The plaintiff must satisfy all the ingredients for claiming temporary injunction, including prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. The plaintiff's stand before different cour....
The court ruled that the marks 'BundlePe' and 'LatePe' are not deceptively similar to 'PhonePe', as 'Pe' is a common term in the payment industry, and the plaintiff failed to establish distinctivenes....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a fresh cause of action does not justify filing a new suit when the matter is part-heard before another court. The judgment also highlighted t....
The principle of prior user of a trademark prevails over subsequent registrations, especially when confusion or association is likely between goods and services of similar trade sectors.
The court emphasized likelihood of consumer confusion in trademark law, holding that similar marks can infringe established trademarks regardless of differences in service or field, thus supporting t....
The main legal point established is the protection of registered trademarks under the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the exclusive rights of the registered proprietor, infringement of trademarks, and t....
The use of the mark 'SUPER POSTMAN' by defendants was found to infringe the plaintiff's rights in the 'POSTMAN' mark due to deceptive similarity and ongoing goodwill of the plaintiff's trademark desp....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.