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 i