Bombay High Court dismisses PhonePe’s trademark infringement case against BharatPe’s PostPe

Share via:

The Bombay High Court dismissed PhonePe’s trademark infringement case against fintech startup BharatPe’s buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) arm PostPe on Thursday (April 6), dealing a major blow to the digital payments giant.

PhonePe’s interim injunction application, which sought to prevent PostPe from using the brand name due to similarities to PhonePe’s trademarks, was denied by Justice Manish Pitale.

“… As a result, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case for both infringement and passing-off in the context of its trademark ‘PhonePe’… “In light of the foregoing, the application is dismissed,” wrote the Bombay High Court in its decision.

In its order, the court noted that PhonePe failed to make a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The HC rejected PhonePe’s claim that “gullible or uneducated persons, or even educated and aware customers,” would be confused by the two parties’ services.

The court rejected PhonePe’s claim that the two trademarks were phonetically and structurally similar, noting that the term ‘Pe’ was widely used and alluded to ‘Pay’ in the domain in which both players were active.

“… The words ‘phone’ and ‘post’ have distinct dictionary meanings and cannot be confused with one another. “This Court finds no phonetic similarity between the two marks to support the plaintiff’s claim that a strong prima facie case exists to grant interim reliefs,” the HC added.

BharatPe argued in its submissions that the term ‘PostPe’ was coined from the concept of postponed payment, alluding to customers’ ability to buy now and pay later. The fintech behemoth also stated that it only accepted customers with acceptable credit histories, as opposed to PhonePe’s simple payment service via UPI and other modes.

The new ruling adds to the long-running dispute between BharatPe and PhonePe over the use of the suffix ‘Pe.’

Disclaimer

We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We StartupNews.fyi want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.

Popular

More Like this

Bombay High Court dismisses PhonePe’s trademark infringement case against BharatPe’s PostPe

The Bombay High Court dismissed PhonePe’s trademark infringement case against fintech startup BharatPe’s buy-now-pay-later (BNPL) arm PostPe on Thursday (April 6), dealing a major blow to the digital payments giant.

PhonePe’s interim injunction application, which sought to prevent PostPe from using the brand name due to similarities to PhonePe’s trademarks, was denied by Justice Manish Pitale.

“… As a result, the plaintiff has failed to establish a prima facie case for both infringement and passing-off in the context of its trademark ‘PhonePe’… “In light of the foregoing, the application is dismissed,” wrote the Bombay High Court in its decision.

In its order, the court noted that PhonePe failed to make a strong prima facie case for grant of interim relief. The HC rejected PhonePe’s claim that “gullible or uneducated persons, or even educated and aware customers,” would be confused by the two parties’ services.

The court rejected PhonePe’s claim that the two trademarks were phonetically and structurally similar, noting that the term ‘Pe’ was widely used and alluded to ‘Pay’ in the domain in which both players were active.

“… The words ‘phone’ and ‘post’ have distinct dictionary meanings and cannot be confused with one another. “This Court finds no phonetic similarity between the two marks to support the plaintiff’s claim that a strong prima facie case exists to grant interim reliefs,” the HC added.

BharatPe argued in its submissions that the term ‘PostPe’ was coined from the concept of postponed payment, alluding to customers’ ability to buy now and pay later. The fintech behemoth also stated that it only accepted customers with acceptable credit histories, as opposed to PhonePe’s simple payment service via UPI and other modes.

The new ruling adds to the long-running dispute between BharatPe and PhonePe over the use of the suffix ‘Pe.’

Disclaimer

We strive to uphold the highest ethical standards in all of our reporting and coverage. We StartupNews.fyi want to be transparent with our readers about any potential conflicts of interest that may arise in our work. It’s possible that some of the investors we feature may have connections to other businesses, including competitors or companies we write about. However, we want to assure our readers that this will not have any impact on the integrity or impartiality of our reporting. We are committed to delivering accurate, unbiased news and information to our audience, and we will continue to uphold our ethics and principles in all of our work. Thank you for your trust and support.

Website Upgradation is going on for any glitch kindly connect at office@startupnews.fyi

More like this

You can now use the Microsoft Copilot bot on...

Copilot is a chatbot based on OpenAI’s GPT-4...

China’s $47B semiconductor fund puts chip sovereignty front and...

China has closed a third state-backed investment fund...

AI models have favorite numbers, because they think they’re...

AI models are always surprising us, not just...

Popular

Upcoming Events

Startup Information that matters. Get in your inbox Daily!