Justice Khanna observed that Blinkhit had zero turnover and it didn’t even mention its financials in its plea
The Supreme Court said it was not inclined to interfere with the Karnataka HC’s judgement and dismissed the appeal
In April, the Karnataka HC set aside a temporary injunction issued by a court against Blinkit in a trademark infringement case filed by the Bengaluru-based web development company
In a major relief for Zomato-owned Blinkit, the Supreme Court (SC) on Friday (August 4) reportedly refused to stay the Karnataka High Court’s order in a trademark infringement case involving the quick-commerce giant.
The issue relates to the HC’s April order that set aside a temporary injunction in favour of Blinkhit by a trial court, which also included directives to dispose of the matter in a year. Blinkhit, which has also claimed the trademark, later challenged the HC’s order in the Supreme Court.
A SC bench of Justices Sanjiv Khanna and SVN Bhatti, while hearing a plea filed by Blinkhit, observed that the appellant had zero turnover and no financials were attached to support the case.
“You have zero turnover. I went through the files, you did not even mention your financials,” Justice Khanna said as per Bar and Bench.
Subsequently, the SC, in its order, noted that it was not inclined to interfere with the HC’s judgement and dismissed the appeal.
At the heart of the matter is a trademark infringement case filed by a Bengaluru-based web development company Blinkhit against the quick-commerce major in the Bengaluru civil court in June 2022.
While Blinkhit claimed to have owned and registered the trademark ‘Blinkhit’ and ‘iBlinkhit’ since 2016, the company apparently applied for the trademark of its alliteration Blinkit in December 2021.
Around the same time in 2021, Blinkit, then called Grofers, undertook a rebranding exercise and changed its name to Blinkit. It then sought a trademark on the name Blinkit. The matter took a legal turn when reports emerged that Zomato was looking to acquire Blinkit. In quick succession, the web development company approached the Bengaluru civil court in June 2022 and sought an injunction.
At first, the civil court agreed with Blinkhit’s contention and granted a temporary injunction. Post this, the quick-commerce major moved the Karnataka HC and obtained a stay. Right afterwards, the case again went to the lower court, which yet again ruled in favour of the web-development company.
Following this, Blinkit again knocked on the doors of the HC. The HC again refused to entertain Blinkhit’s contention of obtaining the ‘Blinkhit’ trademark much before Blinkit commenced operations as a rebranded entity.
In April, the HC also flagged the same concern as SC, saying that no business was being carried out and no income was generated by Blinkhit under the trademark. The HC also said that the two parties differed in nature of business and stayed the injunction in favour of Blinkit in April.
As the legal tangle unravels, there is much at stake for Blinkit, which has spent crores of rupees for creating brand value.
The reprieve from the SC came a day after Zomato reported a consolidated profit after tax (PAT) of INR 2 Cr in the first quarter of the financial year 2023-24 (FY24). Even as Zomato’s food delivery business continued to scale, the quick-commerce vertical saw a muted revenue growth during the quarter.
