The Madras High Court dismissed a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by digital payments giant PhonePe against Kolkata-based fintech firm BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. The court ruled that the term “Pe”—a key element in PhonePe’s branding—is a commonly used word in India’s payment services industry and cannot be monopolized by any single entity.
Justice P. Velmurugan, presiding over the case, emphasized that “Pe” is a transliteration of the Hindi word “Pay” and is widely adopted by companies like Google Pay, Paytm, and Apple Pay. The judgment underscored that PhonePe’s attempt to claim exclusivity over the term lacked legal merit, given its generic usage across the sector.
Background of the Dispute
PhonePe, a leading UPI payment platform, alleged that BundlePe and its subsidiary LatePe were infringing its trademark by using the suffix “Pe” in their brand names. The plaintiff argued that the marks “BundlePe” and “LatePe” marks “BundlePe” and “LatePe” were deceptively similar to its registered trademark “PhonePe”, causing consumer confusion and diluting its brand value.
PhonePe claimed ownership of the “PhonePe” mark since 2015, highlighting its registrations across multiple trademark classes and its dominance in processing 48% of India’s UPI transactions. It issued cease-and-desist notices to BundlePe in March 2023, demanding the removal of the contested marks from app stores and domain registries.
BundlePe countered these claims, stating its services focused on bill payments and recharges, distinct from PhonePe’s broader UPI-based offerings. The defendants argued that “Pe” was a descriptive term linked to payments and could not be trademarked. They also highlighted precedents where courts rejected similar claims, such as PhonePe’s earlier dispute with BharatPe.
Read Also - Karnataka HC Pauses SC/ST Act Case Against Infosys Co-Founder Kris Gopalakrishnan and 17 IISc Faculty
Court’s Key Observations
The court noted that “Pe”—derived from the Hindi word for “Pay”—is commonly used in the industry. Justice Velmurugan stated:
“The term ‘Pe’ is neither unique nor arbitrary. Its widespread adoption by other players negates PhonePe’s claim of distinctiveness.”
The judgment highlighted the structural differences between the marks. Prefixes like “Bundle” and “Late” distinguished BundlePe’s services, reducing the risk of confusion. The court observed:
“Theoretical assumptions of confusion cannot override tangible evidence. PhonePe failed to prove actual marketplace deception.”
Read Also - Delhi HC Denies Bail in PMLA Case Linked to Spurious Anti-Cancer Drug Syndicate
BundlePe’s focus on utility bill payments and pay-later options differentiated it from PhonePe’s UPI-centric model. The court found no overlap that would mislead consumers.
PhonePe’s request to declare its mark as “well-known” under trademark law was denied. The court ruled that widespread use of “Pe” by competitors weakened its case for exclusivity.
The dismissal reinforces that generic terms cannot be monopolized, even if popularized by a single brand. Startups and fintech firms can safely use common industry terms like “Pe” without fear of litigation, provided their branding includes distinctive elements.
For consumers, the ruling ensures diverse options in the payment ecosystem. As Justice Velmurugan noted:
“Competition thrives on innovation, not restrictive claims over commonplace words.”
Case Title: PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd & Others
Counsel for PhonePe: Mr. P. Giridharan
Counsel for BundlePe: Mr. R. Sathish Kumar
