Last month, the Karnataka High Court overturned a trial court’s interim injunction ruling, temporarily restricting the use of the ‘Blinkit’ trademark–a well-known online grocery delivery platform–for claimed infringement of the rights of a software services business Blinkhit.
According to Blinkhit, the trademarks “BLINKHIT” and “iBLINKHIT” have been registered since 2016. [1]
The trial court’s temporary injunction prohibiting Blinkit, formerly Grofers, from violating Blinkhit’s trademark was being challenged in an appeal before the court. Due to the respondents’ complicity in suppressing information, the appellants, Blinkit, argued that this decision was unreasonable. Additionally, they claimed that registration without usage had no meaning and that the activities of the two firms were wholly unrelated. [2]
By referring to a Supreme Court ruling in the case of S Syed Mohideen v. P Sulochana Bai, the court came to the conclusion that the simple registration of a trademark including the terms “Blinkhit” or “iBlinkhit” could not be understood or recognised as a document of title. [3]
Justice S. R. Krishna Kumar’s single-judge panel noted that the fundamental justification for the trial court’s interim injunction decision was that Blinkhit had already registered its trademark before the appellant began using the name “BLINKIT” in its marketing. However, it is evident from Blinkhit’s profit and loss account statement and balance sheet that the respondent was not operating a company and did not make any money by utilising the trademarks. [4]
Additionally, Justice SR Krishna Kumar ruled that merely registering a trademark to engage in an entirely different business did not serve as justification for a temporary injunction because the nature of the service claimed to be provided by the parties was so dissimilar.
The solitary judge also considered the fact that Blinkhit had not utilised its registered trademark from 2016 until a lawsuit was brought in front of the trial court.
This led to the conclusion that Blinkit would suffer irreparable injury if a temporary injunction order was made. On the other hand, if the same was refused, Blikhit wouldn’t have any problems.
As a result, the appeal was upheld and the preliminary injunction was lifted. However, the trial court was instructed to decide the main lawsuit, ideally within a year.
Senior Attorneys Udaya Holla, Dhyan Chinnappa, and Advocate Rishi Aneja all served as Blinkit’s legal counsel. The attorneys Govind Raj K Joisa and Senior Advocate CK Nanda represented Blinkhit. [5]
Case Title: Blink Commerce Private Limited v Blinkhit Private Limited
Written by- Himanshu Mishra, a student at St. Mother Teresa Law Degree College, Lucknow, 2nd Semester, an intern under Legal Vidhiya.
References:
[1] LIVE LAW, https://www.livelaw.in/high-court/karnataka-high-court/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-blinkhit-trademark-infringement-grofers-229568 (last visited on 30 May 2023);
[2] BAR AND BENCH, https://www.barandbench.com/news/litigation/karnataka-high-court-blinkit-trademark-infringement-sets-aside-temporary-injunction-blinkhit (last visited on 30 May 2023);
0 Comments