Blinkhit v. Blinkit: Supreme Court refuses to intervene order setting aside stay against Blinkit

Read Time: 02 minutes


It was contended by Blinkit that although Blinkhit had a prior registration in its favour, there was no statement of profits to show that they were running their business or had an existing goodwill in that name.

The Supreme Court recently refused to interfere with the order of Karnataka High Court that had set aside stay against Zomato’s grocery delivery ‘Blinkit’, for being similar to a trademark called ‘Blinkhit’.

Earlier, Karnataka High Court while allowing the appeal by Blinkit held that the trial court made an error in allowing Blinkhit’s application for a temporary injunction, without properly appreciating the materials available on record.

“Mere obtaining registration of a trademark comprising the word BLINKHIT/BLINKHIT component cannot be construed as a document of title”, Justice SR Krishna Kumar observed stating that there was no business or statement of profits generated in the said name post-registration.

In 2022, Blinkhit filed a petition in Bengaluru's civil court stating that it had received the registered trademark in 2016 under several classes and further claimed that its large-scale reputation and goodwill in the market had been built through its trademark and trading style.

The city civil court in Bengaluru ordered an interim injunction, preventing Blinkit from using the trademark until the case is resolved.