The fintech industry in India has seen rapid growth, with digital payments becoming an essential part of daily transactions. In this landscape, trademarks play a crucial role in distinguishing brands and ensuring consumer trust. The case of PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.[1] is a significant legal battle in the Indian fintech sector, as it raises key questions about the monopolization of generic terms in trademarks.
In this case, PhonePe, a leading digital payments company, alleged that BundlePe and LatePe were infringing upon its registered trademark by adopting a deceptively similar name. The plaintiff sought a declaration that PhonePe is a well-known trademark and demanded an injunction against the defendants from using “Pe” in their branding. The defendants, however, argued that “Pe” is a common Hindi term for “pay” and that PhonePe cannot claim exclusive rights over it.
This judgment is significant because it highlights the ongoing struggle between protecting established brands and ensuring that common words remain accessible to new entrants. My take on this ruling is that it rightly prevents larger corporations from monopolizing generic words, thereby fostering healthy competition in the fintech sector. However, it also raises concerns about the potential dilution of well-established brands in a rapidly evolving digital marketplace.
Background of the Case
The dispute between PhonePe Private Limited and BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd. revolves around trademark rights in the Indian fintech sector. PhonePe, a widely recognized digital payments platform, offers services such as UPI-based transactions, bill payments, and online financial services. The company has built strong brand recognition since its launch in 2014 and claims ownership over the term “PhonePe.”
On the other hand, BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd., a relatively new entrant in the fintech space, provides digital payment solutions, including bill payments and a pay-later service under the brand names BundlePe and LatePe. The company registered its corporate name and trademarks legally and did not seek to associate itself with PhonePe.
The plaintiff, PhonePe, contended that BundlePe and LatePe were deceptively similar to their trademarks and could confuse consumers into believing there was an association between the two brands. It sought a well-known trademark declaration under Section 2(1)(zg)[2] read with Section 11[3] of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and a permanent injunction to restrain the defendants from using the names BundlePe and LatePe.
The defendants countered that PhonePe was attempting to monopolize the term “Pe,” which is a transliteration of the Hindi word for “pay” and widely used in the digital payments industry. They argued that there was no likelihood of confusion, as their branding and services were distinct. The case thus hinged on whether PhonePe had an exclusive right over the suffix “Pe” and whether consumer confusion was a real concern.
Additionally, Rule 28 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2002[4], plays a crucial role in understanding the transliteration aspect of this dispute. This rule allows words and numbers appearing in scripts other than Hindi or English to be transliterated and represented in either of these languages. In essence, it facilitates the protection and registration of trademarks in multiple scripts without altering their fundamental meaning. Applying this to the present case, PhonePe’s argument that “Pe” is a distinctive element of its trademark is weakened by the fact that “Pe” is simply a Hindi transliteration of the commonly used English word “Pay.” Since Rule 28 recognizes the legitimacy of transliteration, it reinforces the idea that “Pe” is not a unique, protectable element exclusive to PhonePe, but rather a common linguistic adaptation available for broader commercial use.
This provision strengthens the defendants’ position that the word “Pe” should not be monopolized and should remain available for use by other businesses operating in the same industry, as long as their branding does not create actual consumer confusion.
Judgment and Court’s Rationale
The Madras High Court ruled against PhonePe, dismissing its claims of trademark infringement, passing off, and dilution. The court found that PhonePe had failed to establish that BundlePe and LatePe were deceptively similar or that their usage was likely to confuse consumers.
One of the court’s primary reasons for rejecting PhonePe claimed that the term “Pe” is too generic to warrant exclusive trademark protection. The court acknowledged that “Pe” is a common transliteration of the Hindi word for pay, which is widely used in the digital payments industry. Given that several companies, including BharatPe, Google Pay, and Paytm, use similar terminology in their branding, the court held that PhonePe could not monopolize a generic word that describes the nature of its services.
Further, the court noted that PhonePe had failed to provide substantial evidence of actual consumer confusion. While the plaintiff argued that users might mistakenly associate BundlePe and LatePe with PhonePe, the court found no concrete proof of this. The defendants’ branding was distinct, and their services focused primarily on bill payments and pay-later schemes—differed from PhonePe’s broader range of UPI-based financial services.
The judgment also referenced the Delhi High Court’s ruling in the PhonePe v. BharatPe case, where similar claims by PhonePe were rejected. In that case, the court had ruled that PhonePe could not claim exclusivity over the suffix “Pe” and that mere phonetic similarity does not necessarily result in trademark infringement. The Madras High Court reaffirmed this precedent, emphasizing that granting exclusive rights over “Pe” would set an unreasonable standard and restrict fair competition in the fintech sector.
Ultimately, the court emphasized the need to balance trademark protection with market competition. It ruled that while PhonePe has built strong brand recognition, it cannot claim rights over commonly used words that other businesses should be allowed to use freely. The decision reaffirmed that trademark laws must not be used to suppress legitimate market competition, particularly in an industry as dynamic as digital payments.
By dismissing PhonePe’s claims, the court reinforced that businesses cannot monopolize descriptive terms and that fair competition should be encouraged to foster innovation and consumer choice in India’s booming fintech sector.
critical analysis
The Madras High Court’s decision in PhonePe v. BundlePe is a significant ruling in Indian trademark jurisprudence, particularly in the fintech sector. It reaffirms the principle that generic or descriptive terms cannot be monopolized, a stance that is crucial for maintaining fair competition.
Assessing the Judgment: A Fair Ruling or Missed Protection for PhonePe?
The Court’s decision in PhonePe v. BundlePe carries significant implications for trademark law in the fintech industry. While the ruling emphasizes the importance of keeping generic terms open for fair competition, it also raises questions about the extent to which established brands should be protected from phonetic similarities. The court considered whether PhonePe had an exclusive right over “Pe” and whether the defendants’ use of BundlePe and LatePe could mislead consumers. Ultimately, the judgment reinforced that businesses cannot claim trademark exclusivity over commonly used words without substantial evidence of distinctiveness and consumer confusion. Whether this decision strikes the right balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering open competition is a matter of interpretation.
Moreover, PhonePe failed to provide substantial evidence of consumer confusion. Trademark infringement is typically established when there is a likelihood that consumers will mistake one brand for another. However, the court found no proof that BundlePe or LatePe had misled consumers or attempted to capitalize on PhonePe’s goodwill. The defendants’ branding, while phonetically similar, contained distinct prefixes (Bundle and Late), and their services were not identical to those of PhonePe.
Does This Decision Prevent Bigger Companies from Suppressing New Entrants?
Absolutely. This ruling prevents established companies from using trademark law as a tool to stifle competition. Had PhonePe won this case, it could have paved the way for large corporations to file frivolous lawsuits against smaller competitors using common words in their brand names. By dismissing PhonePe‘s claims, the court has protected the rights of startups and emerging fintech companies, ensuring they can operate without fear of being unfairly targeted by dominant players.
Could This Set a Precedent for Startups Freely Using “Pe” Without Litigation?
While this ruling sets a precedent that PhonePe cannot monopolize “Pe”, it does not mean startups can use it indiscriminately. If a company were to adopt a name that is nearly identical to PhonePe or deliberately designed to mislead consumers, it could still face legal consequences. Courts will continue to assess each case based on factors like phonetic similarity, the nature of services, and the likelihood of confusion.
Comparison with Global Cases
This case draws parallels with disputes in other jurisdictions. For instance, in PayPal v. Paytm, PayPal argued that Paytm’s name was confusingly similar to its own, but Indian courts rejected this claim, holding that Paytm had established independent goodwill. Similarly, in the U.S., cases like Booking.com v. USPTO have explored whether generic words can be trademarked, with courts leaning towards allowing protection only when the name has acquired distinctiveness.
In contrast, European courts are stricter in granting trademarks for generic terms. The EU Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) often refuses trademarks that lack distinctiveness unless the company proves the term has acquired a secondary meaning. If this case had been heard in the EU, PhonePe might have faced an even tougher challenge proving exclusive rights over “Pe.”
Impact on the Indian Fintech Industry
This judgment is likely to encourage more startups to use “Pe” in their brand names without fear of litigation. It also signals to larger companies that they must focus on building distinctive brand identities rather than relying on litigation to block competitors.
For PhonePe, this ruling raises important strategic questions. Instead of fighting legal battles over a generic suffix, PhonePe may need to focus on strengthening its brand through unique visual elements, logos, or slogans. It could also explore co-branding initiatives or exclusive features that distinguish it from competitors.
The Broader Debate: Can Generic or Descriptive Terms Be Monopolized?
One of the biggest takeaways from this case is the ongoing debate about whether commonly used words should be eligible for trademark protection. While trademark law aims to protect businesses from unfair competition, it should not grant companies monopolies over everyday language. If PhonePe had succeeded in this case, it could have opened the door for similar claims in other industries—imagine a company attempting to trademark “Tea” for tea-related products or “Bank” for financial services.
This case highlights the fine line between protecting intellectual property and ensuring a competitive market. Courts must carefully balance trademark rights with the need for open competition, ensuring that trademark law is not misused to limit consumer choice or innovation.
The Madras High Court’s judgment is a positive step for fair competition in India’s fintech sector. It clarifies that large corporations cannot weaponize trademark law to block legitimate businesses from using common words. While brand protection is important, businesses must differentiate themselves through innovation and customer experience rather than legal battles over generic terms.
Going forward, companies in the fintech space must be mindful of how they brand themselves. While distinctiveness is key, relying on common industry terms is unlikely to offer long-term trademark protection. This case sets an important precedent that will likely shape future trademark disputes in India, particularly in the rapidly evolving digital economy.
Conclusion
The PhonePe v. BundlePe case is a landmark decision in Indian trademark law, especially for the fintech industry. The Madras High Court’s judgment reaffirmed that generic or descriptive terms cannot be monopolized and that businesses must establish clear evidence of consumer confusion to claim trademark infringement. The ruling protected fair competition by preventing dominant players from using trademark law to stifle emerging competitors.
From a legal standpoint, the decision is justified. PhonePe failed to demonstrate that BundlePe and LatePe were deceptively similar or that they intended to ride on its goodwill. The court’s reasoning aligns with global trends in trademark law, where businesses cannot claim exclusive rights over commonly used industry terms.
However, this ruling also raises concerns about potential loopholes for copycat brands. While the judgment ensures open competition, it could encourage startups to adopt phonetically similar names to well-known brands without real consequences[HT1] . Courts will need to strike a balance in future cases to distinguish between fair competition and deliberate brand imitation.
Looking ahead, fintech companies must focus on building stronger brand identities beyond generic names. Instead of relying on legal battles, businesses should invest in unique logos, taglines, and product differentiation to establish long-term market credibility. This case sets a precedent that will shape the future of trademark protection in India’s digital economy.
[1] PhonePe Private Limited v. BundlePe Innovations Pvt. Ltd.,Civil Suit (COMM DIV)No.119 of 2023.
[2] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 11, No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
[3] The Trade Marks Act, 1999, § 2(zg), No. 47, Acts of Parliament, 1999 (India).
[4] The Trade Marks Rules, 2002, r. 28 (India).
Authored by: Aeshita Marwah
Blogger, The IP Press
Leave a Reply