In a setback to PhonePe, the Bombay High Court recently rejected its plea for interim against Resilient Innovations, creators of ‘Postpe’ alleging trademark infringement over the word ‘Pe’.
Justice Manish Pitale remarked that the issue of exclusivity over the word ‘Pe’ was a matter of trial and could not be adjudicated at an interim stage. The judge also said that as regards as the remaining portions of the mark, 'Phone' and 'Post', there seemed to be no similarity between them.
PhonePe trademark registered in Devanagari script in 2104
In a detailed order, the HC said: “At this stage, this Court is unable to agree with the plaintiff (PhonePe) that gullible or uneducated persons or even educated and aware customers would be confused between the services of the rival parties. 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.”
According to PhonePe, it had registered the trademark ‘Pe’ in Devanagari Hindi script in 2014. It provides mobile phone applications that facilitated financial transactions through online and offline payment modes.
It contended that the reason for registering the mark ‘Pe’ was because in Hindi it meant ‘on’ and the company provided services ‘on’ mobile phones. The use of the term ‘Postpe’ would affect their business, it added.
PhonePe cannot claime exclusivity
Resilient Innovations opposed the plea claiming that the term ‘Postpe’ was coined from the concept of postponed payment indicating that the customers can buy now and pay later. It contended that the service was distinct from the payment service offered by PhonePe.
It further argued that PhonePe, at this stage, cannot claim exclusivity on part of its trademark ‘pe’ as it was a matter of trial.
Defendant shought to come close to the registered trademark
The high court noted that Resilient Innovations was able to show material which created prima facie distinction between nature of services provided by the rival parties. “It appears that the endeavour of the plaintiff (PhonePe) is to claim that, 'pe' may connote 'payment' but, in its registered trademark, it refers to the colloquial Hindi term 'on', thereby further alleging that the defendant by using 'pe' has sought to come as close as possible to the registered trademark of the plaintiff,” averred the judge.
