Read Time: 05 minutes

Synopsis

The Madras High Court has dismissed a trademark infringement suit filed by digital payments giant PhonePe against BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. Court held that the marks "BundlePe" and "LatePe" used by the defendants were not deceptively similar to PhonePe, nor did they infringe upon its registered trademark.

The lawsuit was filed by PhonePe Private Limited, seeking a declaration that "PhonePe" is a well-known trademark under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company alleged that the defendants’ use of the marks "BundlePe" and "LatePe" in their digital payment services would mislead consumers into associating them with PhonePe. The plaintiff also sought permanent injunctions restraining the defendants from using similar marks, along with punitive damages of Rs 10 lakh.

PhonePe argued that its brand, a combination of "Phone" and "Pe" (a Hindi word meaning 'on' and often associated with the English word 'pay'), had acquired significant goodwill and was widely recognized in India’s digital payments ecosystem. The company claimed that BundlePe’s and LatePe’s use of “Pe” was a deliberate attempt to capitalize on its reputation. It also contended that the phonetic and visual similarities between the marks could lead to confusion among consumers.

BundlePe, however, refuted these claims, arguing that "Pe" is a common term in the payments industry and cannot be monopolized by a single company. It cited previous legal rulings, including a Delhi High Court decision rejecting PhonePe’s claims against BharatPe, to argue that PhonePe could not claim exclusive rights over the use of "Pe." The defendants also highlighted that their services, which focus on bill payments and recharges, were distinct from PhonePe’s broader UPI-based payment services.

The court, after reviewing the arguments, found that the marks "BundlePe" and "LatePe" were not deceptively similar to "PhonePe." It noted that the suffix "Pe" is widely used in the digital payments industry, making it unlikely for consumers to confuse the brands. The bench further emphasized that PhonePe had failed to establish any substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion.

"The plaintiff cannot claim exclusive rights over the use of "Pe" because it is a commonly used word in the payment services industry," said the bench.

Additionally, the high court rejected PhonePe’s request for damages, stating that the company had not demonstrated any financial loss or reputational harm caused by the defendants’ use of the contested marks. It also denied the request for a permanent injunction, ruling that the defendants had a legitimate right to use their brand names.

Case Title: PhonePe Pvt Ltd  Vs. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.