PhonePe, a digital payments company, filed a suit against BundlePe Innovations Pvt Ltd, seeking a declaration that its mark "PhonePe" is a well-known trademark and a permanent injunction against BundlePe's use of similar brand names "BundlePe" and "LatePe". PhonePe claimed that it had ownership over the "PhonePe" trademark, which it had coined by combining the words "Phone" and "Pe", and that it had been using the mark since 2015.
PhonePe alleged that BundlePe was using similar brand names to deceive consumers and create a false association with PhonePe's brand, thereby taking advantage of its reputation and goodwill. However, BundlePe denied all allegations, stating that it did not provide money transfer services like PhonePe and that its platform offered various bill payment and recharge services.
The primary issue before the Madras High Court was whether PhonePe's trademark "PhonePe" was unique and distinctive, and whether BundlePe's use of similar brand names constituted trademark infringement.
The Madras High Court dismissed PhonePe's suit, observing that the term "Pe" was not unique or distinctive, as claimed by PhonePe, and was commonly used in the payment services industry. The court noted that the word "Pe" was a transliteration of the Hindi word "Pay", which was widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and ApplePay.
The court observed that PhonePe's argument was based on a theoretical risk, but there was no tangible proof of confusion in the marketplace. The court also noted that the prefixes used by BundlePe, such as "Bundle" and "Late", would bring in significant distinction, which would not confuse consumers.
The Madras High Court's dismissal of PhonePe's suit highlights the importance of distinctiveness and uniqueness in trademark law. The court's observation that the term "Pe" is not unique or distinctive and is commonly used in the payment services industry underscores the need for companies to carefully consider the distinctiveness of their trademarks before seeking to enforce them against others.
PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd
Citation: 2025 (Mad) 34
Comentarios