The “Pe” Trademark Debate: Analysing the Delhi High Court’s Decision in PhonePe v. Ezy Services & Anr

Introduction

India has witnessed an extraordinary expansion in its digital payments ecosystem over the past decade. With numerous fintech companies entering the market, establishing a unique brand identity has become increasingly important. As competition grows, intellectual property disputes particularly those relating to trademarks have also become more common.

One such dispute arose between PhonePe and BharatPe before the Delhi High Court. The controversy centred on whether the suffix “Pe”, appearing in both brand names, could be exclusively claimed by one entity. PhonePe alleged that BharatPe’s use of the mark “BharatPe” was deceptively similar to its registered mark “PhonePe”, thereby constituting trademark infringement and passing off. However, the Court declined to grant interim relief, reasoning that the plaintiff could not claim monopoly rights over the word “Pe” and that the competing marks had to be assessed in their entirety. The decision has since become an important reference in discussions on composite trademarks and the limits of trademark protection within India’s digital economy.

Background of The Dispute

PhonePe, one of India's leading digital payment platforms, adopted the mark “PhonePe” for its services and secured trademark registration for the same. The company claimed that through continuous use and extensive promotion, the brand had developed strong recognition among consumers. BharatPe later launched a payment solution mainly aimed at merchants and adopted the mark “BharatPe.” PhonePe argued that the defendants deliberately used the suffix “Pe” in order to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation associated with its brand.

Consequently, PhonePe filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court seeking a permanent injunction against the defendants use of the impugned mark. The Court was therefore required to determine whether the marks were deceptively similar and whether their use amounted to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Plaintiff’s Arguments

PhonePe contended that it was the prior adopter and user of the mark and that the suffix “Pe” had become a distinctive element of its brand identity. According to the plaintiff, the term “Pe” was an invented expression and represented the dominant feature of the mark “PhonePe.” The plaintiff further argued that consumers encountering the name “BharatPe” could reasonably believe that the service was connected with PhonePe, particularly because both companies operate within the same digital payments industry. PhonePe also relied on the principle that even partial similarity between trademarks may lead to confusion, especially where the services offered by the parties are closely related. On this basis, the plaintiff alleged that the defendants use of the mark constituted passing off, as it could mislead consumers into believing that BharatPe’s services were linked to or authorised by PhonePe.

Defendants Arguments

The defendants rejected these allegations and emphasised that PhonePe’s trademark registration related to the entire composite mark “PhonePe”, rather than the suffix “Pe” in isolation. They relied on Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which states that registration of a composite trademark does not automatically grant exclusive rights over each individual element contained within it.The defendants also argued that trademarks must be evaluated as a complete unit, rather than being dissected into separate components. In their view, the dominant portions of the respective marks were the words “Phone” and “Bharat,” which are clearly different both visually and phonetically.

Another key submission was that the suffix “Pe” is closely associated with the word “pay”, making it descriptive in relation to payment services. Because of this descriptive nature, the defendants argued that the term could not be monopolised by a single business operating within the digital payments sector.

Legal Principles Applied by The Court

While analysing the dispute, the Delhi High Court referred to several well established principles of trademark law. One of the central doctrines discussed was the anti dissection rule, which requires that trademarks be compared as a whole rather than broken down into separate elements. This rule ensures that courts do not isolate one component of a composite mark when determining similarity. At the same time, courts sometimes rely on the dominant feature test, which allows greater emphasis to be placed on particular elements that significantly influence consumer perception of the mark. Legal scholars suggest that these two approaches are not mutually exclusive; rather, they function as complementary methods for evaluating trademark similarity. Applying these principles, the Court concluded that the suffix “Pe” could not be treated as the dominant or exclusive element of the plaintiff's trademark.

Findings of The Court

The Delhi High Court ultimately declined to grant interim relief to PhonePe. It observed that both “PhonePe” and “BharatPe” are composite trademarks and that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over the suffix “Pe.” The Court further noted that the word “Pe” resembles the word “pay”, which gives it descriptive significance in the context of digital payment services. In the absence of convincing evidence showing that the suffix had acquired a distinct secondary meaning uniquely associated with PhonePe, the claim of infringement could not succeed at the interim stage. Another factor that influenced the Court's decision was the clear difference between the marks as a whole. Apart from the common suffix, the words “Phone” and “Bharat” are entirely different in both appearance and pronunciation. This distinction reduced the possibility of consumer confusion.

Accordingly, the Court held that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of trademark infringement or passing off.

Significance of The Decision

The dispute between PhonePe and BharatPe highlights the limits of trademark protection when the contested element is descriptive or widely used within a particular industry. Businesses generally cannot obtain exclusive rights over such terms unless they are able to demonstrate that the term has developed a distinct secondary meaning associated solely with their brand.

The judgment also underscores the importance of assessing trademarks holistically, rather than focusing on individual elements in isolation. For companies operating in competitive sectors like digital payments, the ruling serves as a reminder that effective brand protection largely depends on the overall distinctiveness of the mark, rather than reliance on commonly used or descriptive components.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision in the dispute between PhonePe and BharatPe offers important insights into how Indian courts approach trademark conflicts involving composite marks. By applying doctrines such as the anti dissection rule and the requirement of distinctiveness, the Court reaffirmed that trademark rights cannot easily extend to generic or descriptive expressions without clear evidence of exclusive association.

As India's digital economy continues to expand, similar disputes are likely to emerge. This judgment therefore contributes significantly to shaping the legal principles governing brand identity, fair competition, and trademark protection within the country’s technology and financial services industries.

Author: -Swaraj Abhyankar, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to chhavi@khuranaandkhurana.com or at  Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorney.

References

1. PhonePe Private Limited v. Ezy Services & Anr., Delhi High Court, 2021.

2. Trade Marks Act, 1999.

3. Kaviraj Pandit Durga Dutt Sharma v. Navaratna Pharmaceutical Laboratories, AIR 1965 SC 980.

4. Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2001) 5 SCC 73.

5. The IP Press https://www.theippress.com/2021/06/16/phonepe-vs-bharatpe-anti-dissection-vs-dominant-mark-test/

6. Law Times Journal https://lawtimesjournal.in/bharatpe-prima-facie-does-not-infringe-phonepe-trademark-delhi-high-court/

7. Compliance Calendar https://www.compliancecalendar.in/learn/phonepe-vs-bharatpe-judgment-does-phonepe-have-the-exclusive-right-to-pe-in-trademark

8. Conventus Law https://conventuslaw.com/report/india-can-exclusivity-be-claimed-for-imaginative/

9. LatestLaws https://www.latestlaws.com/judgements/delhi-hc/2021/april/2021-latest-caselaw-1230-del/