Blinkit Vs Blinkhit; HC directs lower court to solve dispute within one year

NT Correspondent

Bengaluru: The High Court of Karnataka has directed a trial court to dispose of the dispute between two companies having similar names; Blinkit and Blinkhit within one year.

While allowing a petition by Blinkit and setting aside the lower court order which had granted a temporary injunction against the use of the name, the HC said, “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.” Blinkhit Private Limited, a company from Nagarabhavi, Bengaluru, is the owner of the trademark Blinkhit.

The company and its director Harish Srineevasa Shetty filed an application before the XVIIII Additional City Civil Judge, Bengaluru seeking a temporary injunction restraining Blink Commerce Private Limited (a company registered in Haryana) from using the ‘Blinkit’ name which it claimed was deceptively and confusingly similar to its own trademark ‘Blinkhit.’ The lower court had granted the temporary injunction on August 10, 2022.

Blink Commerce Private Limited approached the HC against this temporary injunction. Justice SR Krishna Kumar who heard the petition, allowed the petition and set aside the temporary injunction recently. Blinkhit Private Limited had registered the trademarks ‘Blinkhit’ and ‘iBlinkhit’ in various cate gories and were carrying on business since 2016. It contended that the other company, originally known as Grofers India Private Limited changed its name to Blink Commerce Private Limited only in 2021.

The HC however noted that Blinkhit Private Limited had not used the trademark Blinkhit for any of its products since registering it as a trademark in 2016. “Neither le g al nor acceptable material was placed by the respondents to prima facie establish that they were carrying on business using/utilizing the said trademarks and consequently, even this contention of the respondents cannot be accepted,” the HC said.

The HC also noted that the nature of business carried out by Blinkhit was “completely different from the nature of business/service/activity undisputedly being carried on by the appellantdefendant and consequently, mere obtaining registration of trademarks by the respondent-plaintiff to carryon business/ service/activity which was completely different from the appellant-plaintiff cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the respondent has made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction.”