“Pe” Is Commonly Used Word In Payment Services Industry: Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe's Trademark Infringement Suit

The Madras High Court recently dismissed a suit filed by PhonePe to declare its mark as a well known trademark and to grant permanent injunction against “BundlePe” and “LatePe”. Justice P Velmurugan observed that the term “Pe” was not a unique or distinct one as claimed by PhonePe and was commonly used word in the payment services industry. The court noted that the word, which was a transliteration of the Hindi word “Pay”, was widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and ApplePay. The court noted that given the widespread use of the word “Pe” in the payment sector, PhonePe could not be exclusively associated with the word. “The primary concern revolves around the distinctiveness of the term "Pe" and its potential to create a mistaken association between the plaintiff's and defendant's services. First, the term "Pe" is not as unique or distinctive as the plaintiff claims. The defendant has pointed out that "Pe" is commonly used in the payment services industry and is a transliteration of the Hindi word "Pay," which is widely used by other prominent companies such as Google Pay, Paytm, and Apple Pay,” the court observed. PhonePe claimed that it had ownership over the “PhonePe” trademark which it had coined by combining the words “Phone” and “Pe”. PhonePe claimed that it had been using the mark since 2015, which had been registered under several classes of the Trade Marks Act. PhonePe also submitted that it had also registered several phonetic variations of the mark including “FonePe” and “PhonePay”. It was argued that the brand had gained wide recognition in the in the digitial payment sector and processed around 48% of the of all UPI transactions in India. PhonePe alleged that the defendants - BundlePe Innovations Pvt Ltd, were using similar brand names “BundlePe” and “LatePe” to offer competing payment services. It was submitted that they were using the marks to deceive the consumers and create false association with PhonePe brand, and thus taking advantage of its reputation and goodwill. It was further argued that though a cease and desist notice was issued, the defendant continued to use the marks which prompted PhonePe to approach the court. BundlePe denied all the allegations and submitted that the company was incorporated by following all the procedures and no objections were raised at the time of registering the company. It was also submitted that BundlePe did not provide money transfer services like PhonePe but was a comprehensive platform for consumers to avail various bill payment and recharge services. BundlePe also argued that PhonePe's trademark was generic as the combination of the words was neither unique nor distinctive. It was argued that PhonePe was trying to monopolise common words such as “Phone”, “Pay”, and “pe” by claiming exclusive rights to use in different spellings. The court agreed with BundlePe and noted that the term Pe had not been uniquely tied to the plaintiff's brand in the broader market. The court also noted that the prefixes used by the defendants – Bundle and Late, would bring in significant distinction which would not confuse the consumers. The court observed that PhonePe's argument was based on a theoretical risk, but there was no tangible proof of confusion in the marketplace. Noting that there was distinction between the marks which was unlikely to confuse the consumers, the court noted that the defendant's mark was not deceptively similar to that of PhonePe. Further, noting that PhonePe had failed to sufficiently demonstrate any distinctiveness to its trademark, the court noted that it could not claim permanent injunction against BundlePe or claim damages. The court thus ruled that the defendants were using the word “Pe” in good faith, as part of their branding for their services. Thus, noting that the usage of the word “Pe” by the defendant did not infringe PhonePe's registered mark, the court dismissed the suit. Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. P. Giridharan For Mr. H. Siddharth Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. R. Sathish Kumar Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 34Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment

“Pe” Is Commonly Used Word In Payment Services Industry: Madras High Court Dismisses PhonePe's Trademark Infringement Suit

Upasana Sajeev

Tags