- 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
- 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
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
PhonePe files suit on BharatPe claiming trademark infringement over usage of ‘Pe’ as a suffix
PhonePe - an Indian e-commerce payment system and digital wallet company has filed a suit on BharatPe over the use of the ‘Pe’ (read as ‘Pay’) suffix in its name. Walmart-owned Flipkart’s PhonePe which is based out of Bengaluru has filed a petition in Delhi High Court asking the court to restrain BharatPe from using the name.PhonePe had been in talks with BharatPe from August 2018...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
PhonePe - an Indian e-commerce payment system and digital wallet company has filed a suit on BharatPe over the use of the ‘Pe’ (read as ‘Pay’) suffix in its name. Walmart-owned Flipkart’s PhonePe which is based out of Bengaluru has filed a petition in Delhi High Court asking the court to restrain BharatPe from using the name.
PhonePe had been in talks with BharatPe from August 2018 to drop ‘Pe’ from its name. However, BharatPe made only a few alterations such as changing the colour of the fonts etc. in its logo. PhonePe therefore filed a petition in Delhi High Court.
The present suit has been filed seeking an injunction restraining infringement of trademark, passing off and damages. According to PhonePe, the use of ‘Pe’ by BharatPe is an infringement of its trademarks rights and is misleading. Customers may conclude both companies are linked to each other.
Both PhonePe and BharatPe are leading players on the Unified Payments Interface (UPI) platform. PhonePe has been in the business for long and claims while BharatPe is a comparatively new entrant into the same digital payments space and is a Delhi-based company.