Delhi High Court Refuses To Restrain Ujoy From Using 'Bolt' Mark For EV Charging Services, Says Bolt Technology Has No Market Exposure In India

The court observed that since Bolt is not engaged in providing EV charging services anywhere in the world and has merely installed some EV charging stations in a handful of locations for charging its own vehicles, no trans-border reputation in providing EV charging services can be credited to it which can be said to have spilled over to India.

"There is no justification, therefore, prima facie, for the Court to, by allowing the application of the petitioner, who has no market exposure whatsoever in India, and, prima facie, no spillover or percolation of its trans border reputation into India, to jeopardize the market, or the repute, that the defendant has earned by use of the impugned mark, for providing EV charging services," said the court.

Observing that Ujoy Technology is the first in the Indian market in providing EV charging services, the bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar said:

"In examining these aspects, the Court has to be acutely conscious of the cautionary note sounded both in Milmet Oftho and in Toyota, that the Court must not permit large multinational corporations, which have no intent of coming to India, to throttle an Indian company by not permitting it to sell its product in India."

Bolt Technology OU, formerly known as Taxify OU, is an Estonian Company which operates as a taxi aggregator. The court was told that it also provides ride-hailing, food and grocery delivery, rental of cars, e-bikes and scooters and EV (electric vehicle) charging stations/docks. 

In the suit filed before the High Court Bolt averred that Ujoy Technology by using the mark ‘Bolt’ in respect to EV charging stations in India, was passing off its products and services as those of Bolt’s.

Averring that the brand “BOLT” was conceived and adopted by it in 2018, the company pleaded that by continuous use, the mark ‘Bolt’ has amassed considerable goodwill and reputation and has become exclusively associated with its products and services.

Bolt argued that its ‘Bolt’ mark has amassed international reputation and goodwill, which has spilled over into India much before the adoption of the mark by the defendant. It further placed reliance on certain data sourced from the internet, which indicates the number of times Bolt’s App was accessed by drivers in Ahmedabad, Pune, Surat, Chennai and Kolkata.

Ujoy Technology contested Bolt’s claim that its ‘Bolt’ mark was entitled to be regarded as a “well known trade mark” under Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

It contended that it is the largest player in India in the EV charging stations. It added that the EV charging stations/docks is not the business activity of Bolt and thus, Bolt does not enjoy any goodwill or reputation for the same.

It argued that use of the ‘Bolt’ mark by Bolt in relation to EV charging docks/ stations in Tallinn (Estonia), Lithuania and Portugal, can hardly be regarded as trans-border or worldwide reputation which can be said to have spilled over to India.

The Court said Bolt admittedly has no trademark registration in India, though it has applied for registration of the trademark Bolt Charge and the Bolt device mark, which are pending with the Registrar of Trade Marks.

Observing that Bolt has no business, whatsoever, in India, the bench added that for establishing the tort of passing off, it has to be established that Bolt has a goodwill and reputation in India or that its goodwill and reputation, though garnered abroad, is so considerable that it has spilled over to India.

“In the present case, per contra, there is nothing, whatsoever, to indicate that the plaintiff was “in the EV-charging market” at all, even till date.” The “market”, in which Bolt was using the asserted ‘Bolt’ mark, was a market of taxi hailing services, with associated activities like food and grocery delivery and the like. In the EV-charging market, therefore, it becomes questionable whether the plaintiff can claim to be 'first'," said the court. 

It further took note that since Bolt has no commercial existence in India, even if persons in India were to download its App, no services of Bolt could be availed in India.

“The limited downloading of the plaintiff’s App by persons who may be travelling abroad to countries where the plaintiff’s services are available cannot, prima facie, be regarded as any sign of spillover of the plaintiff’s reputation into India, much less in the EV charging arena,” said the court.

The Court thus dismissed Bolt’s applications seeking interim injunction.

Case Title: Bolt Technology OU versus Ujoy Technology Private Limited & Anr.

Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Del) 180

Counsel for the Plaintiff: Ms. Swathi Sukumar, Mr. Essenese Obhan, Ms. Ayesha Guhathakurta, Mr. Pratyush Rao, Advs.

Counsel for the Defendant: Mr. Chander Lall, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Naman Maheshwari, Mr. Garv Malhotra, Mr. Maneesh Malhotra, Ms. Snehal Maheshwari, Ms. Ananya Chug, Mr. Eshan A. Chaturvedi, Advs.