Updated: Jun 14
Recently, the Karnataka High Court, set aside an interim injunction order passed by the trial court in favour of Blinkhit Private Limited (“Respondent”) restraining Blink Commerce Private Limited (“Appellant”) from using the mark BLINKIT or any other mark deceptively and confusingly similar to Respondent’s registered marks BLINKHIT/iBLINKHIT.
It was the Appellant’s case that while the BLINKHIT/iBLINKHIT are registered in favour of the Respondent, there has been no use of these marks since 2016 and hence, the Respondent is squatting on them. The Appellant also alluded to the difference in nature of business carried on by the parties. The Appellant further submitted that the trial court erred in holding that the registration certificate of the Respondent was a document of title and entitle the respondent to an order of interim injunction.
The Court observed that mere obtaining of registration, without use, of a trademark cannot be construed as document of title. The Court also noted that, not only are nature of business of the parties are totally different, but the Respondent has also not carried on any business under the mark BLINKHIT/iBLINKHIT since 2016. In such circumstances, the Court ruled that, mere registration, without any use, cannot be a basis for injunction, and the balance of convenience lies in the Appellant’ favour.
Accordingly, the Court expressed its disagreement with findings of the trial court and allowed the present appeal.
Blink Commerce Private Limited v. Blinkhit Private Limited & Anr., Karnataka High Court, Miscellaneous First Appeal No. 5756 of 2022(IPR), Judgment dated April 17, 2023.