Read Time: 06 minutes

Synopsis

Last month, the Karnataka High Court reversed a lower court's interim injunction order that temporarily enjoined the use of the 'Blinkit' trademark — a well-known online grocery delivery platform — for alleged violation of the rights of software services company Blinkhit.

Blinkhit had claimed to have registered the marks ‘BLINKHIT’ and ‘iBLINKHIT’ since 2016.

The single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar ruled that the primary reason the trial court granted a temporary restraining order was that Blinkhit had obtained the registered trademark long before the appellant began using the word BLINKIT in its business. The profit-and-loss statement and balance sheet of Blinkhit, however, would plainly indicate that no business was being conducted and no income was being generated by the respondent through the use of the trademarks.

The court observed, “In this context, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel of the appellant (Blinkit) that mere obtaining of registration of a trademark (device mark) comprising of the word BLINKHIT / iBLINKHIT component cannot be construed or treated as a document of tile.”

A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent, who claimed that they had been carrying their business by using the mark “Blinkhit” since 2016. In 2021, the appellant, who was previously named Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., sought to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which they started carrying out business under the name “Blinkit”. The respondent claimed that their trademark has been thus infringed.

The court placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S Syed Mohideen vs. P Sulochana Bai to conclude that merely registering a trademark comprising the word "Blinkhit" or "iBlinkhit" could not be construed or treated as a document of title.

The court observed that the nature of services allegedly carried on by Blinkhit was completely different from the nature of business being carried on by Blinkit and consequently said, “mere obtaining registration of trademarks by the respondent-plaintiff to carry on business/service/activity which was completely different from the appellant-plaintiff cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Viewed from this angle also, the impugned order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside.”

Therefore, it was found that Blinkit would suffer irreparable injury if an order of temporary injunction was passed. Contrarily, Blikhit would not be caused any hardship if the same was refused.

Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the temporary injunction was set aside. The trial court was, however, directed to dispose of the main suit, preferably within a year.

Case Title: Blink Commerce Private Limited And Blinkhit Private Limited