Trademark Infringement: Bombay HC Denies Interim Relief To PhonePe!

The Bombay High Court has recently dismissed plea seeking interim relief to ‘PhonePe’ in a plea filed against Resilient Innovations, creators of ‘Postpe’ citing trademark infringement over the word ‘Pe’.

Justice Manish Pitale, sitting as a single judge, concluded that the issue of exclusivity over the word “Pe” was a subject for trial and could not be adjudicated at an interim stage.

He further stated that there appeared to be no similarity between the other sections of the mark, ‘Phone’ and ‘Post’.

“At this time, this Court is unable to agree with the plaintiff that gullible or uneducated people, or even educated and aware customers, would be confused between the rival parties’ services. This Court also finds that the central idea sought to be conveyed by the two rival trademarks taken as a whole is distinct, particularly when the rival pleadings are appreciated,” the judge noted, concluding that no strong case for interim relief was made out.

The plaintiff, PhonePe’s case was that it had filed the trademark ‘Pe’ in Devanagari Hindi script in 2014.  The company offered mobile phone apps that supported financial transactions using online and offline payment methods.

It said that the mark ‘Pe’ was registered because it signified ‘on’ in Hindi and the company supplied services via mobile phones. It claimed that using the term “Postpe” would harm their business.

The defendant firm, Resilient, which owns Postpe, said that the term “Postpe” was derived from the concept of postponed payment, implying that clients might buy now and pay later.

Resilient argued that the service was unique from PhonePe’s payment service.

It contended that because the case was still in court, PhonePe could not claim exclusivity on a portion of its trademark ‘pe’ at this time.

The Delhi High Court held the same in a pending suit filed by PhonePe against Resilient for the use of the mark “BharatPe.”

Justice Pitale concluded that PostPe was able to present evidence that established a prima facie distinction in the nature of services provided by the competing parties.

“It appears that the plaintiff’s attempt is to claim that, while ‘pe’ may connote ‘payment,’ in its registered trademark, it refers to the colloquial Hindi term ‘on,’ thereby alleging that the defendant, by using ‘pe,’ has sought to come as close to the plaintiff’s registered trademark as possible,” the Court stated while dismissing the interim application.