Trademark Dispute Over “Pe” – PhonePe vs. BundlePe

Introduction

The Madras High Court adjudicated a trademark dispute between PhonePe Private Limited (Plaintiff) and BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. (Defendants). PhonePe alleged that the Defendants’ use of “BundlePe” and “LatePe” infringed on its trademark “PhonePe,” seeking a declaration of its mark as well-known and a permanent injunction against the Defendants.

Facts of the Case

1. PhonePe, a leading UPI-based digital payments platform since 2015, holds trademark registrations for “PhonePe” and similar variations.
2. BundlePe Innovations launched financial services under “BundlePe” and “LatePe” in 2022-2023, which PhonePe claimed were confusingly similar.
3. PhonePe issued cease-and-desist notices, but the Defendants refused to comply, prompting the Plaintiff to seek injunctions and ₹10,00,000 in damages.

Issues Before the Court

1. Whether “BundlePe” and “LatePe” are deceptively similar to “PhonePe.”
2. Whether PhonePe is entitled to a permanent injunction and damages for infringement and passing off.
3. Whether “PhonePe” qualifies as a well-known trademark.
4. Whether the Defendants’ domain names (“bundlepe.com” and “latepe.in”) infringe on PhonePe’s trademark.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

1. “PhonePe” is a distinctive mark that has gained widespread recognition and is strongly associated with digital payments.
2. The Defendants deliberately copied the “Pe” suffix, creating marks that are phonetically and visually similar, leading to consumer confusion.
3. The Plaintiff’s mark has been in continuous use since 2015, whereas the Defendants only launched their services in 2022-2023.
4. The Defendants’ use of domain names bundlepe.com and latepe.in amounts to passing off, as they falsely indicate an association with PhonePe.
5. The word “Pe” has acquired secondary meaning, making it distinctive and eligible for trademark protection.

Defendants’ Arguments

1. The Plaintiff’s explanation that “PhonePe” means “on the phone” contradicts their claim of distinctiveness. The Plaintiff is attempting to monopolize common words such as “Phone,” “Pay,” and “Pe” by claiming exclusive rights to their use in different spellings.
2. “Pe” is a generic term and is merely a misspelling of the word “Pay,” and is commonly used by other financial service providers (e.g., BharatPe, Google Pay, Paytm).
3. The Defendants’ services differ from PhonePe as BundlePe focuses on bill payments and recharges, not direct UPI transactions.
4. No actual consumer confusion has been demonstrated by the Plaintiff.
5. The prefixes “Bundle” and “Late” make the marks sufficiently distinct, preventing any deceptive similarity.
6. The Plaintiff’s claim of dilution is baseless, as there is no evidence of reputation damage.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement

The Court ruled that “BundlePe” and “LatePe” are not deceptively similar to “PhonePe” as their prefixes make them visually and phonetically distinct. “Pe” is commonly used in digital payments, limiting the Plaintiff’s exclusivity claim.

With no deceptive similarity, the Court denied the permanent injunction, as the Plaintiff failed to prove consumer confusion or misrepresentation. It also rejected the ₹10,00,000 damages claim due to a lack of financial proof.

The Court held that “bundlepe.com” and “latepe.in” do not infringe on “PhonePe” since their prefixes differentiate them. It found no substantial proof of confusion or harm. Additionally, it ruled that “PhonePe” is not a well-known trademark, as “Pe” is widely used, reducing distinctiveness. “BundlePe” and “LatePe” do not dilute “PhonePe’s” identity or unfairly benefit from its reputation.

Conclusion

The Madras High Court ruled in favour of the Defendants, establishing that the mere presence of “Pe” in a name does not automatically infringe upon “PhonePe.” This case highlights that trademark protection does not extend to generic words, and companies cannot monopolize commonly used industry terms. The ruling clarifies the threshold for deceptive similarity and trademark exclusivity in India’s digital payments sector.