Karnataka High Court protects Blinkit in trademark infringement suit; sets aside temporary injunction in favour of Blinkhit

The Karnataka High Court in an April 17 order protected e-commerce grocery delivery service Blinkit in a trademark infringement suit filed by Blinkhit while setting aside a temporary injunction passed in the latter's favour [Blink Commerce Private Limited v Blinkhit Private Limited]..Justice SR Krishna Kumar held that the nature of service alleged to be carried out by the parties was completely different and merely registering a trademark to carry on a completely different activity could not be the basis for a temporary injunction. "I am of the considered opinion that the trial court clearly fell in error in allowing I.A.No.1 filed by the respondents and consequently, the impugned order passed by the trial court being wholly erroneous, arbitrary and contrary to the material on record as well as well settled principles of law governing grant of injunction in relation to trademarks", the order reads. .Before the court was an appeal challenging an order of the trial court which passed a temporary injunction preventing Blinkit, formerly known as Grofers, from infringing Blinkhit's trademark. .The appellants, Blinkit, claimed that this order was arbitrary since the respondents were guilty of supressing facts. They also argued that registration without use was of no consequence and the nature of both companies' activities was completely different. .The court placed reliance on a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of S Syed Mohideen v P Sulochana Bai to conclude that merely registering a trademark comprising the word "Blinkhit" or "iBlinkhit" could not be construed or treated as a document of title. Further, the single-judge took into account that the Blinkhit trademark had not used its registered trademark from 2016 till the date a suit was filed before the trial court. .Therefore, it was found that Blinkit would suffer irreparable injury if an order of temporary injunction was passed. Contrarily, Blikhit would not be caused any hardship if the same was refused. Therefore, the appeal was allowed and the temporary injunction was set aside. The trial court was, however, directed to dispose of the main suit, preferably within a 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. .[Read Order]