BLINK COMMERCE PRIVATE LIMITED …..APPELLANT
Versus
BLINKHIT PRIVATE LIMITED & ANR ..…RESPONDENTS
Date of order:- 17.04.2023
This is an Appeal by Blink Commerce Private Limited (Appellant/defendant) in relation to their trademark ‘BLINKIT‘. Appeal was filed in Karnataka High Court against the order of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, the order was dated:- 10.08.2022.
Respondent’s Trademark Registered
Blinkhit Private Limited(Respondent/plaintiff) had obtained the registered trademark ‘BLINKHIT’ and ‘iBLINKHIT’ in various classes and was carrying on business using the same since 2016.
Blinkhit Private Limited instituted the aforesaid suit against the Blink Commerce Private Limited(Appellant/defendant) for permanent injunction and other reliefs.
Temporary Injuction granted to respondent by Trial Court
In the Court of Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore, A suit was filed and an application under order 39 rule 1 & 2 CPC for Injunction was also filed by Blinkhit Private Limited in relation to their registered trademark ‘BLINKHIT‘. In this suit, the trial court granted temporary injunction in favour of Blinkhit Private Limited.
From Grofers to Blink(change of name of appellant)
Blink Commerce Private Limited(Appellant/defendant) was previously known as “Grofers India Private Limited” changed its name to “Blink Commerce Private Limited”, started carrying on business by using the mark BLINKIT.
Nature of business totally different
Hon’ble Court observed, the nature of service/business/activity alleged to have carried on by the Blinkhit Private Limited(Respondent/plaintiff) is completely different from the nature of business/service/activity undisputedly being carried on by the Blink Commerce Private Limited(Appellant/defendant) and consequently, mere obtaining registration of trademarks by the respondent-plaintiff to carry on business/service/activity which was completely different from the appellant-plaintiff cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction.
No business done by respondent
Balance sheet / profit and loss account statement of Blinkhit Private Limited(Respondent/plaintiff) was shown to the Hon’ble Court to indicate that there was no income or no expenses and consequently, no business was carried on by the respondent by using the aforesaid trademark which had been abandoned and in any event used/utilised by the respondent from the inception thereby disentitling it to an order of temporary injunction against the appellant.
Registered Trademark not used by respondent
Court also observed, that despite having obtained registration as long back as in the year 2016, the respondent has not used / utilised the said registered trademark BLINKHIT / iBLINKHIT from 2016 till the date of filing of the suit.
Mere obtaining a trademark is not enough, use of trademark is most important factor
Hon’ble Court, accepted the contention in the Judgement relied on by the Counsel for the appellant that mere obtaining of registration of a trademark (device mark) comprising of the word BLINKHIT / iBLINKHIT component cannot be construed or treated as a document of title , use of the trademark is also an important factor as held by the Apex Court in the case of S.Syed Mohideen vs. P.Sulochana Bai – (2016) 2 SCC 683.
Hon’ble Court after re-appreciation, re-valuation and re-consideration of the entire material on record, High Court held that the trial court clearly fell in error in the order of temporary injunction in favour of respondent and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial court being wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record as well as well settled principles of law governing grant of injunction in relation to trademarks.
The temporary injunction order in favour of Blinkhit Private Limited(Respondent/plaintiff) was set aside.
Read, Reviewed and Edited by
Neeraj Gogia,Advocate
9891800100