JUDGEMENT

% 24.02.2023 IA 13529/2022 (under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the CPC)

The Dispute

1. Formerly known as Taxify OU, the plaintiff was incorporated in 2013 in Estonia as a taxi aggregator, to aggregate all taxies in Tallinn, Estonia, Riga and Latvia on one platform. The plaintiff claims to have conceived and adopted the brand ―BOLT‖ in 2018, and that the expression signified speed as well as electricity. The plaintiff further avers that, under the brands ―BOLT‖ and , the plaintiff was providing, worldwide, ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental of cars, e-bikes and scooters and EV (electric vehicle) charging stations/docks. By dint of continuous use, it is asserted that the marks ―BOLT‖ and have amassed considerable goodwill and reputation and have become exclusively associated with the products and services of the plaintiff. The mark, it is further asserted, constitutes an ―original artistic work‖ within the meaning of Section 2(c)1 of the Copyright Act, 1957, of which the plaintiff, as the creator, is the owner and right holder.

2. Admittedly, the plaintiff has no trademark registration in India, though it has applied for registration of the trademark Bolt Charge in Class 99 and of the device mark in Classes 09, 12, 35, 36, 37 and 39. The said applications are pending, as on date, with the Registrar of Trade Marks.

3. No suit for infringement of trade mark can, therefore, lie at the instance of the plaintiff against anyone in this country, including the defendant. The tort with which the plaintiff charges the defendant is, indeed, not infringement, but passing off. The plaintiff‘s case is that the defendant, by using the mark , is passing off its products and services as those of the plaintiff, or deceiving the unwary consumer into believing the existence of an association between the two.

4. Predicated on the said allegation, the plaintiff seeks, by means of the present suit, an injunction against the defendant from using the

1 (c) “artistic work” means, –

(i) a painting, a sculpture, a drawing (including a diagram, map, chart or plan), an engraving

or a photograph, whether or not any such work possesses artistic quality;

(ii) a work of architecture; and

(iii) any other work of artistic craftsmanship;

impugned mark. The plaintiff has filed, with the plaint, I.A. 13529/2022 under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), seeking an interlocutory injunction restraining the defendants and all others acting on their behalf from (i) passing off their goods and services under the impugned ‗BOLT‘ and marks as those of the plaintiff in relation to ―all kinds of mobility, delivery, EV charging and all related goods and services and any other services cognate and allied thereto‖, and (ii) reproducing, imitating or copying the artistic work in the plaintiff‘s logo, pending disposal of the suit.

5. The present judgement disposes of I.A. 13529/2022.

Rival Stands Submissions of Ms Swathi Sukumar on behalf of plaintiff

6. Arguing for the plaintiff, Ms Swathi Sukumar emphasizes the worldwide goodwill that her client commands which, in her submission, has percolated into this country as well. She submits that the applicant‘s goods and services are provided in over 400 cities in over 45 countries in Europe, Africa, West Asia, South America and Latin America, with over 100 million customers globally. Over 2.5 million drivers, it is submitted, offer rides over the ―Bolt platform‖. She draws my attention to the averment, in the plaint, that the plaintiff, as a ―global market leader in transportation‖, offers services which include vehicles for hire, micro mobility, car sharing, Electric Vehicle (EV) charging stations and docks (with which alone we are concerned in the present case) and food and grocery delivery services.

7. The plaintiff operates a website https://bolt.eu/. It also has accounts on (i) Facebook with 1,707,969 likes and 1,711,954 followers, (ii) LinkedIn with 157,979 followers, (iii) Instagram with