PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. Vs. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.

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

Date of Order: 21st January, 2025

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

Court: High Court of Madras

Judge: Hon'ble Mr. Justice P. Velmurugan

Facts of the Case:

1. Plaintiff’s Background: PhonePe Pvt. Ltd., a leading digital payment platform in India, claims ownership of the "PhonePe" trademark and alleges that it is a well-known mark.

2. Defendants’ Business: BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd., along with its directors, Prashanta Patra and Suman Kundu, operates payment services under the names "BundlePe" and "LatePe".

3. Allegation of Trademark Infringement: PhonePe alleged that "BundlePe" and "LatePe" are deceptively similar to its trademark and could mislead consumers.

4. Legal Action: PhonePe sought a declaration that its mark is well-known and requested a permanent injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed marks. It also sought damages of ₹10,00,000 and the cancellation of the defendants’ domain names.

5. Defendants’ Response: The defendants argued that "Pe" is a generic term, commonly used in the digital payments industry (e.g., Paytm, Google Pay), and that their marks were sufficiently distinct from "PhonePe".

Issues:

1. Are "BundlePe" & "LatePe" deceptively similar to "PhonePe"?

2. Is the plaintiff entitled to a permanent injunction for trademark infringement?

3. Did the defendants engage in "passing off" by misleading consumers?

Reasoning and Analysis by the Judge:

1. No Deceptive Similarity: The court ruled that "BundlePe" & "LatePe" are not deceptively similar to "PhonePe" because:

The prefix "Bundle" and "Late" differentiates them.

The word "Pe" is commonly used in the payments industry.

There was no evidence of actual consumer confusion.

2. No Trademark Infringement: Since the marks were found to be different, no grounds for an injunction were established.

3. No Passing Off: The plaintiff failed to prove that the defendants misled consumers into believing their services were linked to PhonePe.

4.Many other brands use similar terms (e.g., Paytm, Google Pay).

5.The "Pe" suffix is widely used in the payments sector.

6. No Trademark Dilution: The presence of "Pe" in both marks was not enough to diminish PhonePe’s distinctiveness.

7. "Pe" is Not Exclusive: The court ruled that "Pe" is a transliteration of "Pay" and cannot be monopolized by PhonePe.

Decision of the Judge:

The court ruled in favor of the defendants and dismissed all claims made by PhonePe.

No injunctions were granted against "BundlePe" and "LatePe".

No damages were awarded to PhonePe.

The court upheld the defendants’ right to use their marks.

Key Takeaways:

Common industry terms like "Pe" cannot be monopolized.

Trademark protection does not extend to generic terms used widely by other brands.

Mere phonetic similarity is insufficient to claim trademark infringement.

Businesses must provide clear evidence of consumer confusion or financial loss to succeed in such lawsuits.