Karnataka High Court: While hearing the instant appeal filed by Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) against the impugned order passed in 2022 whereby which the Trial Court had allowed an application filed by Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd seeking temporary injunction restraining BCPL from infringing the tradename “Blinkhit” by using the offending mark “Blinkit”; the bench of S.R. Krishna Kumar, J.*, allowed the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Court stated that non-usage of the trademark by the respondent since its registration coupled with the fact that businesses carried out by both the parties is completely different, the balance of convenience is in favour of the appellant who would be put to irreparable injury if temporary injunction is passed against them.
A suit for permanent injunction was instituted by the respondent, who claimed that they had been carrying their business by using the mark “Blinkhit” since 2016. In 2021, the appellant, who was previously named Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., sought to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd., pursuant to which they started carrying out business under the name “Blinkit”. The respondent claimed that their trademark has been thus infringed.
The appellant contended that mere registration without use is of no consequence stating that the respondents have not actually used or utilised the mark for purpose of carrying their business since it was registered. It was further submitted that the nature business of the appellant and respondent is completely different. It was argued that the Trial Court had failed to appreciate the visual, conceptual, phonetical difference of the appellant’s mark with that of the respondent’s mark.
Perusing the facts and contentions presented by the parties, the Court noted that the Trial Court had passed its impugned order on basis of the fact that respondent had obtained its mark “Blinkhit/iBlinkhit” much earlier than the appellant had started using “Blinkit” mark. The Court agreed with the contention raised by the appellant that mere registration of a mark cannot be construed as document of title.
The Court further noted the appellant’s contention that respondent has not utilised its trademark registered in 2016 till the date of filing the suit and considered the balance sheets and profit/loss account statements of the respondent to point out that the respondent was neither carrying out any business using the name “Blinkhit” not generating any income from its usage. The Court further pointed out that the respondents failed to provide any acceptable material in rebuttal of this contention.
The High Court further pointed out that the material on records clearly show that the nature of business carried out by the appellant and respondent is completely different which is why merely obtaining registration of trademark by respondent to carry out a completely different business, cannot be a ground to grant temporary restraint injunction against the appellant.
Upon re-appreciation of the facts, the High Court was of the opinion that the Trail Court was in error in allowing the respondent’s application for temporary injunction and the impugned order was arbitrary and contrary to materials placed on record and well-settled legal principles.
[Blink Commerce Pvt Ltd. v. Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd., 2023 SCC OnLine Kar 22, decided on 17-04-2023]
*Judgment by Justice SR Krishna Kumar
Advocates who appeared in this case :
Appellant- Uday Holla, Sr. Counsel, Dhyan Chinnappa, Sr. Counsel appearing for Rishi Aneja, Adv;
Respondent- C.K. Nanda Kumar, Sr. Adv for Govind Raj K. Joisa, Adv.
