BharatPe and PhonePe Settle Dispute Over 'Pe' Suffix

BharatPe and PhonePe have settled their five-year legal battle over the 'Pe' suffix, withdrawing oppositions and complying with court obligations. Leaders from both companies expressed optimism about the positive impact on the industry.

The dispute involved multiple courts and highlighted broader trademark infringement issues in the tech sector. The settlement enables both companies to focus on innovation and growth in the fintech space.

Settlement Overview

Resolution Reached: BharatPe and PhonePe have resolved their long-standing legal disputes over the use of the 'Pe' suffix in their brand names.

Duration: The settlement ends a five-year legal battle across multiple courts.

Agreement Details: Both companies agreed to withdraw all oppositions in the trademark registry, enabling the registration of their respective marks.

Legal Compliance: Both organizations will comply with the settlement agreement obligations before the Delhi High Court and the Bombay High Court.

Statements from Leaders

• BharatPe's Perspective: Rajnish Kumar, chairman of BharatPe, praised the maturity and professionalism of both management teams, highlighting the positive industry impact.

• PhonePe's Perspective: Sameer Nigam, founder and CEO of PhonePe, expressed satisfaction with the amicable resolution, emphasizing the mutual benefits for the companies and the Indian fintech industry.

Background of the Dispute

Initial Conflict:

• 2018: PhonePe issued a cease and desist notice to BharatPe over the use of 'Pe' in Devanagari script. BharatPe subsequently switched to using "BharatPe" exclusively.

• 2019: PhonePe sought an injunction in the Delhi High Court against BharatPe's use of the 'Pe' suffix, claiming it had acquired distinctiveness.

Escalation and Legal Battles

Commercial IP Infringement Suit:

• 2021: PhonePe filed a suit against BharatPe over the trademark "PostPe" and its variations.

• 2022: The Bombay High Court dismissed PhonePe’s petition for interim injunction, ruling in favor of BharatPe.

Additional Cases:

• Madras High Court: Rejected PhonePe's trademark infringement plea against DigiPe, citing no similarity beyond the 'Pe' suffix.

• Supreme Court: Dismissed PhonePe's appeal to restrain DigiPe from using the 'Pe' trademark, with the court noting insufficient grounds for the case.

Industry Context

Trademark Infringement Trends: This dispute is part of a broader trend of trademark cases among tech startups and major corporations.

• Tesla vs. Tesla Power: Elon Musk's Tesla filed a lawsuit against the battery company Tesla Power for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

• MakeMyTrip vs. Google: The Supreme Court refused relief to MakeMyTrip in its trademark infringement case against Google over the Google Ads programme.

Conclusion

• Future Focus: The settlement allows BharatPe and PhonePe to focus on growing their digital payment ecosystems and contributing to the fintech industry.

• Industry Implications: The resolution sets a precedent for how fintech companies can amicably resolve trademark disputes, fostering a collaborative environment for industry growth.