States High court

Trademark Infringement: Madras HC Dismisses ‘PhonePe’ Appeals Against ‘DigiPe’

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.

 

Nunnem Gangte

Recent Posts

Centre Opposes Ex-Judges Panel To Monitor Stubble Burning In SC

The Centre on Friday opposed a proposal in the Supreme Court to form a committee…

2 hours ago

“It’s A Celebration For Us”: Delhi HC Bar Association Felicitates CJI Sanjiv Khanna

The Delhi High Court Bar Association on Friday honored Chief Justice of India Justice Sanjiv…

2 hours ago

International Criminal Court Issues Arrest Warrant For Israeli PM Netanyahu

The International Criminal Court has recently issued arrest warrants for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu,…

3 hours ago

Cal HC Stays Demolition Of Illegal Constructions In WB’s Mandarmoni

The Calcutta High Court on Friday granted an interim stay on the demolition of alleged…

3 hours ago

SC To Pass Order On Pleas To Efface Words ‘Secular’, ‘Socialist’ From Preamble

The Supreme Court on Friday announced that it would deliver its order on November 25…

4 hours ago

Air Pollution: SC Questions Delhi Govt On Truck Entry Amid GRAP-4 Restrictions

The Supreme Court raised concerns on Friday about the "drastic" consequences of the GRAP Stage…

4 hours ago