Blink Commerce Private Limited v. Blinkhit Private Limited
The case involves a dispute between Blink Commerce Private Limited
(appellant) and Blinkhit Private Limited and others (respondents) over the use
of the trademarks "BLINKHIT" and "BLINKIT." The respondent-plaintiff claimed to
have obtained registered trademarks for "BLINKHIT" and "iBLINKHIT" and alleged
that the appellant-defendant's use of the mark "BLINKIT" infringed upon their
registered trademark. The respondent filed a suit seeking a permanent injunction
and other reliefs, and along with the suit, filed an application for a temporary
injunction. The trial court granted the temporary injunction, which led to the
appeal before the High Court of Karnataka.
Case Citation: MANU/KA/1051/2023
Court: High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru
Date of Decision: 17.04.2023
The respondent-plaintiff filed a suit against the appellant-defendant seeking a
permanent injunction and other reliefs. The respondent also filed an application
for a temporary injunction, which was granted by the trial court. The appellant
filed an appeal challenging the order of the trial court.
The main issue before the court was whether the respondent's registered
trademarks "BLINKHIT" and "iBLINKHIT" were being infringed upon by the
appellant's use of the mark "BLINKIT." The court also needed to determine if the
respondent was entitled to a temporary injunction based on their registered
Rule of Law:
The court relied on the following legal principles and rules:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rule 1: Provides for the grant
of temporary injunctions to restrain the defendant from committing a breach of
contract or other injury of any kind.
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) - Order XXXIX Rule 2: Specifies the
conditions that must be satisfied for the grant of a temporary injunction.
Trade Marks Act, 1999 - Section 17: Recognizes that registration of a trademark
does not create new rights but only recognizes pre-existing common law rights.
Registration is not a document of title and does not confer exclusive rights
over individual marks forming part of a composite mark.
Analysis and Reasoning:
The court analyzed the arguments presented by both parties. The appellant argued
that the respondent's registration of the trademarks did not confer exclusive
rights, as the registration had been revoked in Australia. The appellant also
contended that the nature of their business was different from that of the
respondent, and there was no cause of action for the respondent to file the
suit. The appellant further argued that the marks were visually, structurally,
conceptually, and phonetically different, and there was no likelihood of
confusion or deception.
The court referred to the Supreme Court's decision in S. Syed Mohideen v. P.
Sulochana Bai1 and other case precedents, which held that registration of a
trademark only recognizes pre-existing common law rights and does not create new
rights. The court agreed with the appellant's argument that the registration of
the composite mark "BLINKHIT/iBLINKHIT" did not confer exclusive rights over the
individual mark "BLINKHIT" or "iBLINKHIT." The court also noted that the nature
of business carried out by the appellant was different from that of the
Holding and Decision:
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's order granting
a temporary injunction to the respondent. The court held that the respondent's
registration of the trademarks did not confer exclusive rights over the
individual marks, and there was no prima facie case of infringement.
The court reasoned that the registration of a composite mark "BLINKHIT/iBLINKHIT"
does not automatically grant exclusive rights over the individual mark "BLINKHIT"
or "iBLINKHIT." The registration merely recognizes the pre-existing common law
rights associated with the composite mark as a whole. In this case, the
appellant's use of the mark "BLINKIT" was visually, structurally, conceptually,
and phonetically different from the respondent's registered marks. Therefore,
the court found that there was no likelihood of confusion or deception among the
Furthermore, the court considered the nature of the business carried out by both
parties. The appellant's business activities were distinct from those of the
respondent, which further reduced the likelihood of confusion. The court
emphasized that the respondent's registration of the trademarks did not provide
them with a monopoly over all variations or combinations of the word "BLINK" in
relation to goods or services.
In light of these considerations, the court concluded that the respondent failed
to establish a prima facie case of infringement. Therefore, the trial court's
order granting the temporary injunction was set aside.
The High Court's decision in this case clarifies the principle that the
registration of a composite mark does not grant exclusive rights over the
individual elements of the mark. Trademark registration protects the overall
combination and distinctive character of the mark as a whole, rather than each
component separately. Additionally, the court's analysis emphasized the
importance of considering the nature of the parties' businesses and the
likelihood of confusion or deception among consumers when determining trademark
The mere registration of a trademark does not confer exclusive rights if it is
not used in connection with the business, and a prima facie case for temporary
injunction requires a showing of deceptive similarity and potential confusion
between the marks.
Law Article in India
You May Like
Legal Question & Answers