PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. vs. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Common industry terms cannot be monopolized

Introduction:This case revolves around a trademark infringement and passing-off dispute between PhonePe Pvt. Ltd., a leading digital payment company, and BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd., which operates a similar platform. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant’s use of the marks “BundlePe” and “LatePe” violates its intellectual property rights over “PhonePe” and misleads consumers into associating the services. The suit seeks a declaration of PhonePe as a well-known trademark, a permanent injunction against the defendants from using similar marks, and damages of ₹10,00,000 for the alleged trademark violation.

Plaintiff’s Business & Trademark Rights: PhonePe, a digital payments platform, was incorporated as FX Mart Pvt. Ltd. before rebranding. It operates under licenses from the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and has over 450 million users.It claims ownership of the "PhonePe" mark, registered under multiple classes under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.The plaintiff has spent heavily on marketing, including celebrity endorsements (Aamir Khan & Alia Bhatt), and dominates 48% of all UPI transactions in India.

Defendant’s Business & Alleged Infringement: BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. was incorporated in 2022 and provides similar payment services under the marks “BundlePe” and “LatePe”.PhonePe alleges that the phonetic and visual similarity between these marks creates consumer confusion.The plaintiff issued a cease-and-desist notice in March 2023, but the defendants refused to comply, leading to the lawsuit.

Jurisdiction & Procedural Challenges:The defendants argued that since PhonePe’s registered office is in Mumbai and BundlePe’s in Kolkata, the case should not be heard in Chennai.However, the Madras High Court retained jurisdiction, citing Section 134(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which allows suits where the plaintiff carries out business (PhonePe has a branch in Chennai).

Plaintiff’s Submissions: The "Pe" suffix is a distinct identifier of PhonePe and is not a generic word in English. The defendants’ marks closely resemble “PhonePe” and create confusion in the digital payments sector. The use of capital "P" in "Pe" is an attempt to copy the plaintiff’s branding. The Delhi and Bombay High Courts have previously ruled against similar claims, which the plaintiff argues should not affect this case.

Defendants’ Submissions:The words "Phone" and "Pe" are generic and widely used in the payments industry (e.g., Paytm, Google Pay). The prefixes “Bundle” and “Late” make their marks sufficiently distinct. The Delhi High Court previously rejected PhonePe’s claim over the exclusivity of the word "Pe" in BharatPe's case (CS (Comm) 292 of 2019). The plaintiff is trying to monopolize common industry terms, which is against trademark law. No evidence was provided of actual consumer confusion or financial harm to PhonePe.

Issues Framed by the Court:The court examined ten key issues, including whether:"BundlePe" & "LatePe" are deceptively similar to "PhonePe".  The plaintiff is entitled to a permanent injunction for infringement. "PhonePe" qualifies as a well-known trademark under Section 2(zg) & Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act.

Key Findings & Reasoning of the Judge: No Deceptive Similarity: The court ruled that “BundlePe” and “LatePe” were not deceptively similar to “PhonePe”, as the term "Pe" is commonly used in the digital payment industry.No Infringement or Passing Off: Since PhonePe failed to prove consumer confusion, no injunction was granted.No Damages: PhonePe did not provide financial proof of harm, making the damages claim speculative.Not a Well-Known Trademark: While PhonePe is a popular brand, it does not qualify as a "well-known trademark" under Section 11, as “Pe” is widely used.Domain Name Dispute: The plaintiff sought an injunction against bundlepe.com & latepe.in, but the court ruled that domain names were not deceptively similar.

Decision:Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed, with all issues decided against PhonePe.No injunction, damages, or trademark recognition was granted.

Concluding Note:This case highlights the limits of trademark protection for generic terms in India. The ruling underscores that: Common industry terms cannot be monopolized (e.g., "Pe" in the payments sector).Consumer confusion must be proven with market evidence.

Case Title: PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. vs. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

Date of Order: January 21, 2025

Case No.: Civil Suit (COMM DIV) No. 119 of 2023

Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras

Judge: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan

Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman

[Patent and Trademark Attorney]

High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer:The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.