Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit
In a significant legal decision, the Madras High Court recently dismissed PhonePe’s lawsuit seeking exclusive rights to the term “Pe” in the digital payments sector. The company had filed the case to obtain recognition of its brand as a well-known trademark and to secure a permanent injunction against competitors BundlePe and LatePe. The ruling underscored that “Pe,” derived from the Hindi word for “pay,” is a generic term frequently used across the payment services industry.
Court’s Observations on the Use of “Pe”
Justice P. Velmurugan, who presided over the case, emphasized that “Pe” was neither unique nor distinctive as claimed by PhonePe. The court noted that this term is commonly employed by numerous major players in the payment landscape, such as Google Pay, Paytm, and Apple Pay. Since the word “Pe” had become a standard term within the digital payments ecosystem, it could not be exclusively associated with any single entity.
The judge observed, “The primary issue revolves around whether the term ‘Pe’ can create confusion between the services of the plaintiff and the defendants. However, the evidence presented demonstrates that the term ‘Pe’ is a transliteration of the Hindi word for ‘pay’ and is widely adopted by other financial services providers. Therefore, it lacks the distinctiveness required for exclusive trademark protection.”
PhonePe’s Claims and Arguments
PhonePe asserted that it coined the term by combining the words “Phone” and “Pe,” and had been using the trademark since 2015. The company highlighted that the brand name was registered under several classes of the Trade Marks Act, and phonetic variations such as “FonePe” and “PhonePay” were also protected.
To strengthen its case, PhonePe pointed to its substantial market presence, claiming it processed nearly 48% of all UPI transactions in India. The company alleged that BundlePe and LatePe were deliberately using similar brand names to deceive consumers and leverage PhonePe’s established reputation. Despite issuing a cease-and-desist notice, the defendants continued to use the disputed marks, prompting PhonePe to seek legal recourse.
BundlePe’s Defense
BundlePe Innovations Pvt Ltd, the defendant, rejected PhonePe’s accusations, arguing that its brand names were neither deceptive nor confusing for consumers. The company highlighted that it followed all regulatory processes during registration and that no objections were raised at the time.
Furthermore, BundlePe clarified that its platform did not offer money transfer services like PhonePe. Instead, it functioned as a comprehensive solution for bill payments and recharges. The company argued that PhonePe’s trademark was inherently generic, comprising common terms like “Phone,” “Pay,” and “Pe,” which lacked originality.
Court’s Final Ruling
After examining the evidence and arguments from both sides, the court sided with BundlePe. It found no compelling proof that the defendant’s branding caused market confusion or infringed on PhonePe’s trademark rights. The court noted that the prefixes “Bundle” and “Late” provided sufficient differentiation from “PhonePe,” ensuring that consumers were unlikely to be misled.
The court emphasized that PhonePe’s concerns were based on a hypothetical risk rather than concrete evidence of consumer confusion. Justice Velmurugan stated, “There is no tangible proof to show that consumers have been misled. The defendant’s branding includes distinct prefixes that negate any likelihood of confusion.”
Read Meanwhile; Sun Pharma’s RACIRAFT Vs JB Pharma’s RANRAFT: Delhi High Court Grants Interim Trademark Protection to Sun Pharmaceutical
Conclusion
The court dismissed PhonePe’s claims for damages and permanent injunction. It ruled that BundlePe’s use of the term “Pe” was in good faith and did not infringe upon PhonePe’s trademark rights. This judgment underscores the importance of distinctiveness in trademark claims and reinforces the principle that generic terms commonly used in an industry cannot be monopolized.
This ruling is a crucial reminder for businesses to carefully assess the distinctiveness of their trademarks before seeking exclusive rights. It also highlights the balance courts strive to maintain between protecting intellectual property and promoting healthy competition in the market.
Read further: Explained: PhonePe v. BharatPe Trade Mark Dispute — “Pe”/Pay-as-you-go
Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit, Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit, Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit, Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit, Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit, Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe Trademark Suit
