Brief Facts 

In the case of Blink Commerce Pvt Ltd. v. Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. (BCPL) filed an appeal against the impugned ruling from 2022, which was the result of the Trial Court granting Blinkhit Pvt. Ltd.’s request for a temporary injunction barring BCPL from using the infringing mark Blinkit in connection with the tradename Blinkhit.

The respondent filed a lawsuit seeking a permanent injunction, claiming they have been conducting business under the name “Blinkhit” since 2016. The appellant, formerly known as Grofers India Pvt. Ltd., sought to change its name to Blink Commerce Pvt. Ltd. in 2021, after which they began operating under the moniker “Blinkit”. The respondent alleged that this constituted a trademark infringement.

Argument Advance 

The respondents haven’t utilised the mark to carry on their company since it was registered, the appellant argued, so mere registration without use is meaningless. Furthermore, it was argued that the appellant’s and respondent’s businesses are entirely unrelated. It was asserted that the Trial Court had overlooked how the appellant’s mark differed from the respondent’s mark in terms of appearance, concept, and phonetics.

Courts Conclusion 

The Single bench of Karnataka High Court Justice S.R. Krishna Kumar granted the appeal and revoked the challenged decision. The Court ruled that because the respondent has not used the trademark since it was registered and because both parties’ businesses are entirely unrelated, the balance of convenience favours the appellant, who would suffer irreparable harm if a temporary injunction were to be issued against them.

The Trial Court’s decision to issue the impugned order, the Court noted, was based on the fact that the Respondent had acquired its mark “Blinkhit” far earlier than the Appellant had begun using the “Blinkit” mark. The Court agreed with the appellant’s argument that a mark’s registration alone cannot serve as a document of title. The court also took into consideration the respondent’s balance sheets and profit/loss account statements, which showed that the respondent was neither operating a business under the name “Blinkhit” nor making money from its use. The appellant had argued that the respondent had not used its trademark registered in 2016 up until the date the lawsuit was filed. 

The Court further noted that the respondents had not offered any credible evidence to refute this assertion. The High Court further emphasised that the evidence on file demonstrates that the types of businesses that the appellant and respondent conduct are wholly dissimilar. As a result, the mere fact that the respondent registered a trademark for use in a wholly unrelated business cannot serve as justification for issuing a temporary injunction against the appellant. After reconsidering the circumstances, the High Court concluded that the Trail Court erred by granting the respondent’s request for a temporary injunction and that the impugned ruling was capricious, against the evidence in the record, and against established legal precedents.