Trademark Disputes Fintech Solutions India.
The fintech sector in India—including UPI apps, digital wallets, lending platforms, and payment aggregators—has seen numerous trademark disputes. These disputes often involve issues like:
Deceptive similarity and passing off
Suffix/generic term disputes (e.g., “Pe” in PhonePe, BharatPe)
Domain name and digital branding conflicts
Well-known mark claims and consumer confusion
The key legal provisions are:
Section 28 — Exclusive rights of registered proprietor
Section 29 — Infringement
Section 11 — Well-known trademarks
Section 27-30 — Passing off remedies
1) PhonePe Pvt. Ltd. v. BundlePe Innovations & LatePe (Madras High Court)
Facts:
PhonePe sued BundlePe Innovations and the product LatePe, claiming the suffix “Pe” was being used in a confusingly similar manner in the digital payment domain.
Issue:
Whether PhonePe could claim exclusivity over the suffix “Pe” in fintech marks.
Held:
The Madras High Court held that:
“Pe” is a generic transliteration of “pay” in Hindi and widely used in fintech.
The prefixes “Bundle” and “Late” made the marks distinct enough.
Principle:
Generic industry terms cannot be monopolized. Trademark protection requires evidence of actual confusion in the minds of consumers.
2) PhonePe v. DigiPe Fintech (Supreme Court Appeal Dismissed)
Facts:
PhonePe challenged DigiPe for using the mark “DigiPe,” claiming infringement.
Issue:
Does the suffix “Pe” give PhonePe exclusive rights in the fintech industry?
Held:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal:
Many fintech brands (BharatPe, PostPe) already used the suffix.
Mere similarity in suffix, without strong evidence of confusion, is insufficient.
Principle:
Widespread industry usage limits exclusivity; strong reputation and evidence of confusion are needed for interim relief.
3) PhonePe v. BharatPe (Settlement)
Facts:
PhonePe and BharatPe were engaged in long-running disputes over the suffix “Pe” across multiple litigations.
Outcome:
Both companies settled amicably, withdrawing pending oppositions and allowing each to continue using their respective brands.
Principle:
In sectors with generic suffix usage, commercial settlements may be more practical than prolonged litigation.
4) BharatPe v. BharatPay (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
BharatPe filed suit against BharatPay for using a confusingly similar name in the payments space.
Issue:
Is there a likelihood of confusion between BharatPe and BharatPay in the consumer mind?
Held:
Delhi High Court granted temporary injunction, restraining BharatPay from using the mark pending further proceedings.
Principle:
When products/services overlap and the marks are phonetically similar, courts may grant interim relief to prevent confusion.
5) PhonePe v. AGF Finlease — “PhonePey Loan”
Facts:
PhonePe filed suit against AGF Finlease for using the mark “PhonePey Loan” for digital lending services.
Held:
Delhi High Court granted interim injunction:
Preventing use of “PhonePey Loan” in lending services.
Ordering social platforms and websites to remove the infringing mark.
Principle:
Trademark protection extends to closely similar variants, including digital platforms, if confusion is likely.
6) Tata Payments v. Unauthorized Domain Users (Delhi High Court)
Facts:
Tata Payments sued unknown parties using “Tata” or “Tata Payments” on fake domains and Telegram channels.
Held:
Delhi High Court granted ex-parte injunction:
Restraining use of Tata marks.
Ordering domain and social platform takedowns.
Principle:
Trademark enforcement includes cyber and digital rights protection in the fintech sector.
7) Observations Across Fintech Cases
Generic vs Distinctive Elements: Suffixes like “Pe” are considered generic; protection requires distinctiveness.
Likelihood of Confusion: Courts analyze overall impression, phonetic/visual similarity, and overlap of services.
Interim Relief: Courts are willing to grant injunctions to prevent market confusion.
Domain & Digital Rights: Digital enforcement is increasingly part of trademark policing.
Settlements & Coexistence: In crowded markets, settlements are common to avoid prolonged litigation.
Key Legal Takeaways
Avoid monopolizing generic terms like “Pe” in fintech branding.
Distinctiveness matters for strong legal protection.
Act quickly: Interim injunctions are easier if the infringing use is active.
Digital enforcement is essential: websites, apps, social media, and domains must be monitored.
Settlements are a practical alternative in competitive sectors.
RELATED Blog
comments