Non use of Registered Trademark ‘Blinkhit’ and different service category does not amounts to Blinkit’s Trademark Infringement- Karnataka High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2023

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5756 OF 2022 (IPR-) 

BETWEEN:

BLINK COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY WITHIN THE MEANING OF COMAPNIES ACT 2013

(PREVEIOUSLY KNOWN AS GROFERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED)

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT PLOT NO 64H,

SECTOR 18, GURUGRAM, HARYANA 122001

REP BY AUTHORISED SIGNATORY

DEPUTY MANGAER , REAL ESTATE

MR. VIVEK MINAREY.                                                                                                                                            …APPELLANT

(BY SRI. UDAYA HOLLA, SENIOR COUNSEL AND

SRI. DHYAN CHINNAPPA, SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR SRI. RISHI ANEJA, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. BLINKHIT PRIVATE LIMITED

A COMPANY INCORPORATED UNDER COMAPAINES ACT 2013

HAVING ITS REGISTERED OFFICE AT NO 91/2

14TH BLOCK, 3RD MAIN, 4TH CROSS

NGEF LAYOUT, NAGARBHAVI

BENGALURU – 560 072

REP BY MANAING DIRECTOR.

2. HARISH SRINEEVASA SHETTY

S/O S R SREENIVSA SHETTY AGED

33 YEARS NO 80, MUNESHWARA LAYOUT

CHIKKAGHOLLARAHATTI, MAGADI MAIN ROAD

BENGALURU 562 123.                                                                                                                                            …RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.C.K.NANDA KUMAR, SENIOR ADVOCATE FOR SRI. GOVIND RAJ K. JOISA, ADVOCATE)

THIS MFA IS FILED U/O 43 RULE 1(r) R/W SECTION 104 OF CPC, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10.08.2022 PASSED ON I.A.NO.1 IN OS.NO.3994/2022 ON THE FILE OF THE XVIII ADDITIONAL CITY CIVIL JUDGE, BENGALURU, CCH-10, ALLOWING THE I.A.NO.1 FILED UNDER ORDER 39 RULE 1 AND 2 OF CPC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS, THIS DAY, THE COURT DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

JUDGMENT

This appeal is directed against the impugned order dated 10.08.2022 passed on I.A.No.1 in O.S.No.3994/2022 by the XVIII Addl.City Civil Judge, Bangalore, whereby the said application filed under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 by the respondent – plaintiff for temporary injunction restraining the appellant – defendant or anybody claiming under them from infringing the plaintiff’s registered trade mark “BLINKHIT” by using the offending mark “BLINKIT” or any other deceptively and confusingly similar trade mark was allowed by the trial court.

2. The material on record discloses that the respondent – plaintiff instituted the aforesaid suit against the appellant – defendant for permanent injunction and other reliefs. It was specifically contended that by the respondent – plaintiff that the respondent – plaintiff had obtained the registered trademark ‘BLINKHIT’ and ‘iBLINKHIT’ in various classes as detailed in paragraph-5 of the plaint and was carrying on business using the same since 2016. It was contended that the respondent had established its vast reputation and goodwill in the market with trademark / trading style with unique B device. It was contended that in the year 2021, the appellant – defendant who was originally known by name “Grofers India Private Limited” sought to change its name to “Blink Commerce Private Limited”, pursuant to which, they started carrying on business by using the mark “BLINKHIT”, thereby infringing the registered trademark of the respondent – plaintiff, who filed the instant suit.

Read More