Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Temporary Restraining Injunction Against Blinkit: Mere Registration of a Mark cannot be Construed as Document of Title

Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Temporary Restraining Injunction Against Blinkit: Mere Registration of a Mark cannot be Construed as Document of Title

The Karnataka High Court passed an order protecting the e-commerce grocery delivery service Blinkit in a trademark infringement suit filed by Blinkhit while setting aside a temporary injunction passed in the latter’s favor.

The single judge Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar, while hearing the instant appeal filed by Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) against the impugned order passed in 2022 whereby which the Trial Court had allowed an application filed by Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd seeking temporary injunction restraining BCPL from infringing the tradename “Blinkhit” by using the offending mark “Blinkit,” allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order.

The Court stated that non-usage of the trademark by the respondent- Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd., since its registration coupled with the fact that businesses carried out by both the parties is completely different, the balance of convenience is in favor of the appellant- Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) who would be put to irreparable injury if temporary injunction is passed against them.

Previously, a suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent, who claimed that they had been carrying their business by using the mark “Blinkhit” since 2016.

In 2021, the appellant, who was previously named Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., sought to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which they started carrying out business under the name “Blinkit”. The respondent claimed that their trademark had been thus infringed.

The appellant contended that mere registration without use was of no consequence stating that the respondents had not actually used or utilized the mark for purpose of carrying their business since it was registered. It was further submitted that the nature business of the appellant and respondent was completely different. It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the visual, conceptual, phonetical difference of the appellant’s mark with that of the respondent’s mark.

The Court after perusing and contentions presented by the parties, noted that the Trial Court had passed its impugned order on basis of the fact that respondent had obtained its mark “Blinkhit/iBlinkhit” much earlier than the appellant had started using “Blinkit” mark.

The Court agreed with the contention raised by the appellant that mere registration of a mark cannot be construed as document of title.

The Court further noted the appellant’s contention that respondent had not utilized its trademark registered in 2016 till the date of filing the suit and considered the balance sheets and profit/loss account statements of the respondent to point out that the respondent was neither carrying out any business using the name “Blinkhit” nor generating any income from its usage.

The Court appositely found that the respondents had failed to provide any acceptable material in rebuttal of this contention.

The High Court further pointed out that the material on records clearly revealed that the nature of business carried out by the appellant and respondent was completely different which is why merely obtaining registration of trademark by respondent to carry out a completely different business, cannot be a ground to grant temporary restraint injunction against the appellant.

Upon averting to present facts, the High Court was of the opinion that the Trial Court was in error in allowing the respondent’s application for temporary injunction and the impugned order was arbitrary and contrary to materials placed on record and well-settled legal principles.