In a recent development, the Karnataka High Court issued an order on April 17 in the case of Blink Commerce Private Limited v Blinkhit Private Limited, concerning a trademark infringement suit. The court ruled in favor of e-commerce grocery delivery service Blinkit and overturned a temporary injunction that had been granted in favor of Blinkhit.
Justice SR Krishna Kumar, who presided over the case, determined that the services provided by the two parties were entirely different. Merely registering a trademark for a different activity could not be a basis for granting a temporary injunction, according to the judge. The court found that the trial court had made an erroneous decision by allowing the temporary injunction sought by Blinkhit. The order was deemed arbitrary, contrary to the evidence presented, and in violation of established legal principles regarding injunctions in trademark matters.
Blinkit, formerly known as Grofers, had appealed the trial court's order, arguing that the respondents had withheld crucial information and that the activities of both companies were dissimilar. The Karnataka High Court relied on a Supreme Court judgment in the case of S Syed Mohideen v P Sulochana Bai to support its conclusion that merely registering a trademark with the word "Blinkhit" or "iBlinkhit" did not hold legal significance.
Furthermore, the court considered the fact that Blinkhit had not utilized its registered trademark since 2016 until filing the lawsuit before the trial court. As a result, it was determined that Blinkit would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction were granted, while Blinkhit would not face significant hardship if it were refused.
Consequently, the appeal by Blinkit was allowed, and the temporary injunction was set aside. The trial court was directed to expedite the resolution of the main suit, ideally within one year.
Blinkit was represented by Senior Advocates Udaya Holla and Dhyan Chinnappa, along with Advocate Rishi Aneja. Blinkhit was represented by Senior Advocate CK Nanda Kumar and Advocate Govind Raj K Joisa. Click Here to: Download/View Related File
TAGS: Trademark infringement suit Karnataka High Court Blinkit Blinkhit temporary injunction order nature of service registration trademark different activity suppression of facts Supreme Court judgment S Syed Mohideen v P Sulochana Bai irreparable injury appeal disposal of main suit Senior Advocates Udaya Holla and Dhyan Chinnappa Advocate Rishi Aneja Senior Advocate CK Nanda Kumar Advocate Govind Raj K Joisa.
