- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
PhonePe And BharatPe Resolve Trademark Dispute Through Out-Of-Court Settlement
PhonePe And BharatPe Resolve Trademark Dispute Through Out-Of-Court Settlement
BharatPe and PhonePe have resolved their Trademark infringement dispute through an out-of-court settlement, as informed to the Delhi High Court on Wednesday.
Justice Sanjeev Narula was notified that both parties are withdrawing their respective cases.
After reviewing the settlement agreement, the High Court decreed the suit based on the terms of the agreement.
“Suit decreed in terms of the settlement agreement dated May 17, 2024,” the Court said.
PhonePe and BharatPe have been engaged in a legal battle for the past few years. Both the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court had previously dismissed PhonePe’s applications for interim relief.
In its suit before the Delhi High Court, PhonePe argued that “Pe” was an "invented word" and a crucial, dominant, and distinguishing feature of its registered trademarks, including "PhonePe." PhonePe contended that Resilient Innovations’ use of “BharatPe” for similar services infringed its registered trademark and constituted passing off.
However, the Court determined that both “PhonePe” and “BharatPe” were composite marks, and thus, PhonePe could not claim exclusivity over the “Pe” suffix alone.
The Court did, however, preliminary acknowledge that there might be merit in PhonePe's argument that the “Pe” suffix, which clearly suggests the meaning "pay," was a dominant and essential feature of "PhonePe.".