In the case of PhonePe vs Ezy Services and Ors, the Delhi high court rejected the interim injunction order against" Bharatpe "stating that the mark was in violation of the trademark held by Phonepe".
This matter was heard by Single Bench Justice C Hari Shankar , who in any case coordinated "BharatPe" to keep up records of the accounts earned because of the utilization of the mark and to document half-yearly evaluated statements.
Submission of Phone Pe
PhonePe (offended party) presented that "Pe" was an "invented word" and was a fundamental, prevailing, and recognizing highlight of its enrolled trademark in name of "PhonePe".
It was contended that utilization of "BharatPe" by Resilient Innovations (litigant), which offered "identical services", encroached its enlisted trademark and furthermore added up to passing off.
The plaintiff declared that a buyer of normal knowledge and imperfect memory, on seeing the respondents' imprint "BharatPe", would see the "Pe" postfix and link the services of the defendant with that of the plaintiff.
Submission of Bharat Pe
The defendant,in return, stated that Plaintiff was not the enrolled owner or allowed the client of the words, "Pe", "Pay" or the Devnagari "??".
The enrollment by the plaintiff was over the entire word "PhonePe" and the equivalent can't be analyzed, it was contended.
The respondent additionally asserted that the two imprints for example PhonePe and BharatPe were outwardly, phonetically, and basically extraordinary when seen all in all.
The respondents asserted that the BhartPe mark was being utilized since 2016, adding that the thought behind the imprint was to assemble a solitary QR code for vendors to work with making of installments across all shopper UPI-based applications, and subsequently the slogan, "Bharat Pe Sab Chalta Hai".
Subsequent to examining the provisions of the Trademarks Act and plenty of decisions on the issue of trademark violation court stated that that "PhonePe" and "BharatPe" were both composite imprints and the plaintiff can't claim exclusive right over "pe" suffix as no infringement can be asserted based on part of an enrolled brand name.
It is prima facie that there might be substance in the plaintiff's case that the "Pe" postfix, which in fact suggests the expression and signifying "pay", established the predominant part of the fundamental elements of the "PhonePe".
Nonetheless, as of now, the proof to reach an authoritative resolution that the "Pe" postfix would in the public awareness be related with the plaintiff's service was deficient, the Court held.
The Court additionally thought that excepting the basic "Pe" postfix, the two imprints were not confusing or misleadingly comparable.
As needs are, the Court excused the application for an interim order against the defendant. ,