Chime Financial, Inc Vs The Registrar of Trade Marks

The case pertains to an appeal filed by Chime Financial, Inc. against a decision by the Registrar of Trademarks, which refused the registration of Chime's trademark application. Below is the detailed summary of the appeal along with citations from the document.

Overview of the Case

• Case Title and Reference: C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024
• Date of Decision: 2nd April 2025
• Court: High Court of Delhi
• Appellant: Chime Financial, Inc.
• Respondent: The Registrar of Trade Marks
• Judgment Author: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amit Bansal

Background and Relevant Facts

1. Formation and Business: Chime Financial, Inc. is a financial technology company incorporated in 2012 in the USA. It provides online banking and financial products under its trademark.
2. Usage of Trademark: The mark has been in continuous use since March 2014 on the website www.chime.com and is associated with a mobile banking platform that boasts an active user base of over 14 million.
3. Recognition: The company has been recognized in various prestigious lists for its contributions, such as being valued at $25 billion and ranking high in various industry accolades.

Trademark Application

• Chime filed an application (no. 5241586) on a "proposed to be used basis" for their trademark in Classes 9, 35, 36, 41, and 42, claiming priority from a previous U.S. application filed on 27th August 2021.

Grounds for Refusal

1. Cited Marks: The Registrar cited several existing trademarks that were reportedly phonetically and visually similar to the appellant's mark, leading to the refusal of the application based on Section 11(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. This section relates to the refusal of marks that are either identical or similar to an existing mark in relation to similar goods/services, if a likelihood of confusion exists,.
2. Response from Chime: Chime responded to each cited mark disputing the similarities based on the dissimilarity of goods/services and consumer classes, arguing that no confusion was likely.

Court's Findings

• The Court scrutinized the cited marks, concluding that they pertain to goods/services dissimilar to those of the appellant, thus there should not be a likelihood of confusion:
• Cited marks ranged from aerospace to real estate, which were not closely related to Chime’s financial services,.
• The Court noted that the Registrar had failed to analyze the cited marks individually and had instead made generalized assertions regarding their similarity.

Conclusion

• The appeal was allowed, and the Court overturned the Registrar’s refusal, directing that the Registrar proceed with advertising Chime's mark within two months of the decision.
• This judgment underscores the importance of assessing each case on its merit, particularly the uniqueness of goods/services offered under the trademarks in question.

Citation

• Chime Financial, Inc. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks, C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 64/2024, High Court of Delhi, decided on April 2, 2025.