The Madras High Court recently dismissed a bunch of appeals filed by digital payments company PhonePe. These appeals challenged a prior single-judge ruling that declined to restrain DigiPe from using its logo in a trademark infringement lawsuit initiated by PhonePe.
A Bench comprising Chief Justice SV Gangapurwala and Justice PD Audikesavalu declined to intervene with the single-judge’s June order, which denied PhonePe an injunction.
The Division Bench maintained that PhonePe had not successfully demonstrated that its Unified Payments Interface (UPI) app and the DigiPe app targeted a similar customer base. The use of the term ‘Pe’ by DigiPe, according to the court, had the potential to create confusion.
“The defendants have argued that the ‘DigiPe’ application is not intended for individual customers and is limited to merchant establishments. They have indicated that their target customers are distinct from those of the plaintiff. Hence, there is no possibility of confusion. The defendants have clearly stated on their website that the DigiPe App serves the requirements of both merchants and customers,” the bench noted.
Furthermore, the Court observed that PhonePe’s original lawsuit against DigiPe was ready for trial and that the former could present evidence during trial to substantiate its claims.
The Court also highlighted that PhonePe had taken different stances before various High Courts in similar cases involving copyright infringement, specifically concerning the use of the term ‘Pe’.
“Considering the specific circumstances of the case, reconciling the plaintiff’s inconsistent positions is challenging. The plaintiff’s stance before different courts diverges significantly. The position presented to the Registrar of Trademark was entirely disparate and inconsistent with the stance taken in the current matter. The position presented to the Delhi High Court in the litigation against ‘BharatPe’ was also markedly dissimilar. In that particular case, the plaintiff admitted that ‘CardPe’ was the initial user and adopter of the ‘Pe’ formative mark. The Plaintiff cannot be considered the originator of the ‘Pe’ formative mark. The learned Single Judge has effectively managed this situation,” the order stated.
