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.
Today, On 24th December, The Delhi High Court restrained the use of the name ‘PhonePey Loan’ in a trademark case filed by PhonePe. The court also ordered GoDaddy to take down the ‘PhonePey Loan’ website. PhonePe raised concerns that the name was too similar to its trademark. The court’s decision is to avoid any confusion among users.
BharatPe and PhonePe settled their “Pe” trademark dispute after the Delhi High Court ruling, ending years of legal battles. Both companies can continue using their brand names. The decision brings significant resolution to the fintech industry. BharatPe, established in 2018, claims a vast merchant network, while PhonePe is a major player in India’s fintech landscape with over 535 million registered users.
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.