The Madras High Court dismissed PhonePe’s trademark case against BundlePe, ruling that “Pe” is not a unique or exclusive element. The court stated that “Pe” is a commonly used term in the payment industry and its use by BundlePe does not amount to trademark infringement. The judgment emphasized that Rule 28 of the Trademark Rules allows Hindi-English transliteration, making “Pe” a legitimate representation of “Pay.” This ruling is a big blow to PhonePe’s exclusivity claims and a win for open competition in digital payments.
The Supreme Court rejected PhonePe’s trademark infringement claim against DigiPe, emphasizing the complexities of trademark disputes in fintech. PhonePe argued that DigiPe’s name could confuse consumers, but the court noted the widespread use of “Pe.” The decision highlights the need for distinct branding and evidence in trademark disputes in the digital payments industry.
