Case Analysis | IP & Litigation

Wordplay or trademark infringement?

/ / Wordplay or trademark infringement?

The Delhi High Court delivered an interim injunction order rejecting an injunction application filed by Phone Pe against Bharat Pe. The Court explored the counterbalance between the ‘Anti-Dissection Rule’ and ‘Dominant feature rule’. It was held that both the trademarks in issue cannot be dissected as they are composite marks. It was further held that ‘Pe’ is a generic word for the English word ‘Pay’ and misspelling ‘pay’ as ‘pe’ cannot be said to change the legal position.

But, despite the court ruling, it seems to be notable that the word “Pe” is an adaptation of the English word “Pay” and clearly a unique identifier for the brand name especially in context to the services they offer. Even though as a composite mark they may seem very different, but if broken down, there is some ambiguity here as both the plaintiff and the defendant seem to be competitors.

It seems, grey areas and ambiguity is synonymous with trademark disputes and this case seems to be an example of just that.

For details, you can read the complete article here. –

Similar Posts

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *