PhonePe and BharatPe have been locked in a legal battle over the past few years.
Both the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed PhonePe’s interim relief applications.
In its suit before the Delhi High Court, PhonePe submitted that “Pe” was an "invented word" and was an essential, dominant and distinguishing feature of its registered trademarks in the name of "PhonePe".
It was argued that the use of “BharatPe” by Resilient Innovations, which offered identical services, infringed its registered trademark and also amounted to passing off.
However, the Court ruled that “PhonePe” and “BharatPe” were both composite marks and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity solely over the “Pe” suffix.
PhonePe and BharatPe have been locked in a legal battle over the past few years. Both the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court had earlier dismissed PhonePe’s interim relief applications.
In its suit before the Delhi High Court, PhonePe submitted that “Pe” was an "invented word" and was an essential, dominant and distinguishing feature of its registered trademarks in the name of "PhonePe". It was argued that the use of “BharatPe” by Resilient Innovations, which offered identical services, infringed its registered trademark and also amounted to passing off.
However, the Court ruled that “PhonePe” and “BharatPe” were both composite marks and the plaintiff cannot claim exclusivity solely over the “Pe” suffix.
It prima facie opined that there may be substance in the plaintiff's claim that the “Pe” suffix, which admittedly connotes the expression and meaning “pay", constituted the dominant part or the essential feature of the “PhonePe".
