Madras High Court rejects PhonePe appeals in trademark infringement case against DigiPe

DigiPe's maintained its stance that its application was tailored for merchant establishments and a distinct customer group, thus eliminating the likelihood of any confusion.

The Court noted, as reported by Bar and Bench, "The defendants have contended that the 'DigiPe' application is not useful for any individual customers and the same is confined to merchant establishments. Their target customers are entirely different from the customers of the plaintiff. Therefore, there is no question of confusion. The defendants on their website have categorically stated that DigiPe App caters to the needs of both merchants and customers."

The Court also indicated that the initial lawsuit between PhonePe and DigiPe was heading for a trial, affording PhonePe the opportunity to present evidence to substantiate its claims. However, the Court raised concerns regarding PhonePe's inconsistent positions in various high courts with respect to copyright infringement cases involving the use of the term 'Pe.'

The Court highlighted PhonePe's varying stances before different courts, which cast doubt on the credibility of its claims.

The order specifically noted that in a separate case involving 'BharatPe' before the Delhi High Court, PhonePe had admitted that 'CardPe' was the originator and adopter of the 'Pe' formative mark, implying that PhonePe itself was not the originator of the term 'Pe'.

The Madras High Court's decision underscores the importance of maintaining consistent positions across different legal proceedings and raises questions about PhonePe's assertions concerning the 'Pe' formative mark.