Blinkhit v. Blinkit: Karnataka High Court Sets Aside Interim Injunction Order Against Blinkit Citing Non-Use Of Registered Trademark By Blinkhit

The Karnataka High Court last month set aside an interim injunction order of the trial court, temporary restraining the use of 'Blinkit' trademark- a famous online groceries delivery platform- for alleged violation of the rights of a software services firm Blinkhit.

Blinkhit claimed to have registered the marks ‘BLINKHIT’ and ‘iBLINKHIT’ since 2016.

A single judge bench of Justice S R Krishna Kumar observed that the main ground on which the trial court has granted temporary injunction is that Blinkhit had obtained the registered trademark much prior to the appellant starting the use of word BLINKIT for its business. However, the profit and loss account statement and balance sheet of Blinkhit would clearly indicate that no business was being carried on and no income was generated by the respondent by using the trademarks.

"In this context, as rightly contended by the learned Senior counsel of the appellant (Blinkit) that mere obtaining of registration of a trademark (device mark) comprising of the word BLINKHIT / iBLINKHIT component cannot be construed or treated as a document of tile," it observed.

Moreover, the nature of services allegedly carried on by Blinkhit is completely different from the nature of business being carried on by Blinkit and consequently, "mere obtaining registration of trademarks by the respondent-plaintiff to carry on business/service/activity which was completely different from the appellant-plaintiff cannot be made the basis to come to the conclusion that the respondent had made out a prima facie case for grant of temporary injunction. Viewed from this angle also, the impugned order passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside."

The bench concluded,

“The non-use of the registered trademarks by the respondent-plaintiff from 2016 onwards coupled with the undisputed fact that the nature of service/business/activity alleged to have carried on by the respondent – plaintiff is completely different from the nature of business/service/activity undisputedly being carried on by the appellant-defendant was sufficient to come to the conclusion that the balance of convenience was in favour of the appellant, who would be put to irreparable injury and hardship if an order of temporary injunction was passed against the appellant and in favour of the respondents who would not be caused any prejudice, injury, loss or hardship if injunction was refused.”

Thus it  set aside the impugned interim injunction order and directed the trial court to dispose of the suit as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year.

Case Title: Blink Commerce Private Limited And Blinkhit Private Limited

Case No: MISCELLANEOUS FIRST APPEAL NO. 5756 OF 2022

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Kar) 188

Date of Order: 17-04-2023

Appearance: Senior Advocates Udaya Holla, Dhyan Chinnappa for Advocate Rishi Aneja for appellant.

Senior Advocate C.K.Nanda Kumar for Advocate Govind Raj K Joisa for respondent.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment