Trademark Infringement [Blinkit v. Blinkhit]: Karnataka HC Vacates Temporary Restraining Injunction Against Blinkit

Trademark infringement is a critical issue in intellectual property law. Companies invest significant time, effort, and resources in establishing and protecting their trademarks. These distinctive marks play a crucial role in distinguishing their products or services from those of competitors and building a strong brand identity. In a recent case in Karnataka, India, a dispute arose between two parties: Blinkit and Blinkhit. The Karnataka High Court decided whether Blinkit had infringed on Blinkhit’s trademark.

This article delves into the case details. It analyzes the court’s decision to vacate the temporary restraining injunction and explores the broader implications for trademark infringement disputes.

Case Study: Blinkit v. Blinkhit

The case of Blinkit v. Blinkhit centers around two companies operating in the digital marketing industry. Blinkhit, an established company, owns a trademarked brand name. Blinkit, a newcomer to the market, introduced a similar brand name. This led Blinkhit to file a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement.

S.R. Krishna Kumar, J., sitting on a bench, ruled in favor of Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) in its appeal from the order of the Trial Court of 2022. That order granted Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd.’s application for a temporary injunction to prevent BCPL from using the trademark “Blinkit” in violation of Blinkhit’s trade name. Due to the respondent’s lack of trademark usage since registration and the dissimilar nature of the businesses pursued by the two parties, the court ruled that the balance of convenience favored the appellant, who would suffer irreparable harm in the event of a temporary injunction being issued against them.

The respondent stated in their 2016 permanent injunction petition that they had used the mark “Blinkhit” in connection with their business activities. The appellant, formerly known as Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., filed to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. in 2021 and began doing business as “Blinkit.” According to the respondent, this constitutes trademark infringement.

After reviewing the evidence and arguments offered by both parties, the Supreme Court affirmed the Trial Court’s impugned order. This was based on the fact that the respondent had obtained its mark “Blinkhit/iBlinkhit” considerably earlier than the appellant had begun using the “Blinkit” mark. The Court agreed with the appellant’s argument that trademark registration alone cannot be considered evidence of ownership.

The court also considered the respondent’s profit and loss statements and balance sheets. This led it to conclude that it was not operating a business under the name “Blinkhit” or making any money from doing so at the time the suit was filed, as the appellant had claimed. The court said that the respondents had not shown sufficient evidence to refute this argument.

The High Court added that the materials on record show that the nature of business carried out by the appellant and the respondent is completely different, so the mere registration of a trademark by the respondent to carry out a completely different business cannot be a ground to grant a temporary restraint injunction against the appellant.

Based on a further analysis of the evidence, the High Court concluded that the lower court erred when it granted the respondent’s motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the impugned ruling was arbitrary and contrary to evidence and precedent.

Understanding Trademark Infringement

The infringement of a trademark must be proven by demonstrating certain elements. Firstly, there must be a valid and legally protected trademark. Secondly, the defendant’s mark must be confusingly similar to the plaintiff’s mark. The likelihood of confusion is determined by considering factors such as the similarity of the marks, the similarity of the products or services, and the channels of trade.

In addition to confusion, dilution is another significant aspect of trademark infringement. Dilution occurs when the distinctive quality or reputation of a famous mark is harmed by the defendant’s mark, regardless of the likelihood of confusion.

Temporary Restraining Injunction

A temporary restraining injunction is a legal order that restricts a party from engaging in certain activities until a court decides the case. In the Blinkit v. Blinkhit case, Blinkhit obtained a temporary restraining injunction against Blinkit. This prevented the latter from using their disputed mark during legal proceedings.

Karnataka High Court’s Decision

The Karnataka High Court, renowned for its expertise in intellectual property matters, thoroughly examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. After careful consideration, the court vacated the temporary restraining order injunction against Blinkit. The court reasoned that there was insufficient evidence to establish a likelihood of confusion between the two marks.

Legal Arguments and the Court’s Reasoning

Blinkhit argued that Blinkit’s use of a similar mark would confuse consumers, leading them to associate Blinkit’s services with Blinkhit. However, Blinkit believed its mark was distinctive enough to avoid confusion. The court carefully analyzed the marks, the nature of the services offered, and the target consumers. Ultimately, the court found that the marks were not confusingly similar and that Blinkit’s services were distinct enough to avoid confusion.

Implications and Impact

The Karnataka High Court’s decision to vacate the temporary restraining injunction has significant implications for trademark infringement cases in India. It emphasizes the importance of thoroughly evaluating the likelihood of confusion and the dilution of distinctive quality in such cases. This decision may influence future judgments and guide businesses in understanding the threshold for trademark infringement.

Importance of Trademark Protection

Trademark protection is crucial for businesses of all sizes. By registering a trademark, companies can safeguard their intellectual property rights and prevent others from using similar marks that could cause confusion or dilute their brand’s distinctive qualities. Trademarks protect company investments and build brand reputation and consumer trust.

Avoiding Trademark Infringement

To avoid trademark infringement issues, businesses should take proactive steps to protect their intellectual property. Conducting thorough trademark searches before launching your brand or product can help identify potential conflicts and mitigate infringement risk. It is advisable to consult with a legal professional well-versed in intellectual property law to ensure compliance and minimize legal disputes.

How To Avoid Trademark Infringement Issues

Trademark infringement is a serious concern that can significantly impact a company’s reputation and market position. In the case of Blinkit v. Blinkhit, the Karnataka High Court’s decision to vacate the temporary restraining injunction underscores the importance of establishing a likelihood of confusion in trademark infringement cases. Businesses should be vigilant about protecting their trademarks and understanding intellectual property law nuances to avoid legal disputes and safeguard their brand’s identity.

Alonika can help if you’re having trouble with anything similar or need guidance finding a suitable trademark. They have lawyers who can handle the process quickly and easily. Contact us now.

Trademark Registration in Bangalore | Trademark Registration in Chennai