SUMMARY
In an order passed on April 17, Justice SR Krishna Kumar directed the trial court to dispose of the case within a period of one year
The HC stayed the trial court’s injunction and observed that no business and no income were being generated under the trademark obtained by Blinkhit
Bengaluru-based web development company Blinkhit filed a trademark infringement plea against Blinkit
In an order passed on April 17, a single-judge bench of the Karnataka HC dismissed the application filed by Blinkhit and directed the trial court to dispose of the case within a period of one year.
“The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, without being influenced by the findings and observations made in the impugned order or this order,” Justice SR Krishna Kumar said.
At the centre of the case is Blinkhit’s claim that it owns the trademark ‘Blinkit’. Blinkhit claims that it has owned the trademark ‘Blinkhit’ and ‘iBlinkhit’ since 2016, and applied for the trademark of its alliteration Blinkit in December 2021.
However, the HC refused to entertain Blinkhit’s contention that it obtained the registered trademark in 2016, much prior to Blinkit using the word for its business. Citing Blinkhit’s profit and loss statement and non-usage of trademark since 2016, the HC observed that no business is being carried out and no income is being generated under the trademark.
The HC also observed that the nature of the business of the two parties is completely different from each other and as such the balance of convenience lies in favour of the quick commerce giant.
“The material on record… was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant, who would be put to irreparable injury and hardship if an order of temporary injunction was passed against the appellant..,” the court said.
Calling the trial court’s judgement wholly erroneous and arbitrary, the HC sent the matter back to the lower court and sought further examination.
Much At Stake For Blinkit
In its plea before the HC, the Zomato-owned platform contended that a mere registration of trademark, without any use, did not entitle Blinkhit to squat on the trademark in question. The plea also claimed that the nature of business carried out by Blinkit is completely different from the businesses covered under the trademarks of Blinkhit.
“The trial court failed to appreciate that the appellant’s mark was visually, structurally, conceptually and phonetically different and distinct from the respondent’s alleged marks leaving no room for any deception or confusion…,” claimed Blinkit in its petition.
The matter harks back to 2021 when Blinkit, then called Grofers, undertook a full-fledged rebranding exercise, and applied for a trademark on the name ‘Blinkit’ in early December of 2021.
However, the matter suddenly escalated into a legal tangle last year when reports emerged that Zomato was looking to acquire Blinkit. Subsequently, the Bengaluru-based web development company filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against Blinkit in the Bengaluru civil court in June 2022.
The civil court granted a temporary injunction in favour of Blinkhit, following which Blinkit moved the HC. In the second round of proceedings in August, the web development company again received an injunction in the matter from the lower court. In response, the Albinder Dhindsa-led company yet again obtained a stay on the matter.
As the legal saga continues to unravel, the case could have far-reaching consequences on the matter. The quick commerce company has spent crores of rupees on rebranding exercise and creating a brand value, all of which could be at stake if the courts rule in favour of the web development company.
This case adds another dimension to the troubles facing Blinkit, which is already reeling under the pressure of heavy losses, workers’ strike and inflationary pressures. Zomato’s quick commerce arm reported an adjusted earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation (EBITDA) loss of INR 203 Cr in Q4 FY23, while its revenue stood at INR 363 Cr.
