The Battle of the “Pe” – A Look at the PhonePe vs BharatPe Trademark Case
The world of trademarks in India is full of interesting disputes, but few have drawn as much public attention as the clash between two popular fintech companies, PhonePe and BharatPe. Both companies operate in the digital payments space, and both use the suffix “Pe” in their brand names. What looked like a simple naming coincidence soon turned into one of the most talked-about legal battles in the Indian startup world. The case made many people, especially those in business and law, think deeply about how far trademark rights can extend when two companies share a common idea or linguistic expression.
PhonePe was founded in 2015 and quickly became one of India’s leading mobile payment applications. Its name is a mix of “Phone” and the Hindi word “Pe,” which means “on” or “at,” symbolizing payments made “on the phone.” A few years later, BharatPe entered the market with a similar naming style, using “Bharat” (meaning “India”) and the same “Pe.” Both companies offer similar services such as digital payments, merchant transactions, and QR-based transfers. When BharatPe started expanding its business rapidly, PhonePe took issue with its name and logo, claiming that the suffix “Pe” had become a distinctive part of its registered trademark.
In 2019, PhonePe filed a lawsuit in the Delhi High Court seeking to restrain BharatPe from using the term “Pe” in its name and branding. PhonePe argued that the term had acquired a secondary meaning directly linked with its services, and that customers now associated “Pe” with the PhonePe brand. The company said that allowing another fintech company to use the same expression in the same market could mislead consumers and dilute its brand identity.
BharatPe, however, argued that the word “Pe” is a common Hindi preposition that simply means “on.” According to BharatPe, no company could claim monopoly rights over such a generic or descriptive expression. It also pointed out that its logo, color scheme, and overall get-up were completely different from PhonePe’s, which made confusion unlikely. BharatPe’s lawyers emphasized that trademarks are meant to protect distinctive signs, not everyday language.
The Delhi High Court, after reviewing both sides, took an interesting and balanced view. The Court observed that the word “Pe” is indeed a part of ordinary Hindi language and is widely used in India. The Court stated that it cannot be monopolized by a single company, especially in an industry where similar expressions are commonly used to describe services related to payment platforms. However, the Court also noted that if a company can show that an otherwise common term has become so closely associated with its brand that consumers directly identify it with that company, then some level of protection might still apply.
In this case, the Court was not convinced that PhonePe had proved this special association beyond doubt. The judges pointed out that “Pe” alone could not be treated as a unique trademark because it lacked inherent distinctiveness. The Court said that while the overall combination of “PhonePe” as a wordmark might be protectable, that protection does not extend to the word “Pe” standing by itself. Based on this reasoning, the Court refused to grant an injunction against BharatPe, allowing it to continue using its name.
What made the case more interesting is that after this judgment, both companies tried to negotiate an out-of-court settlement but could not agree on terms. PhonePe later filed fresh suits when BharatPe tried to register more trademarks using “Pe,” including “PostPe” and “PayPe.” The Delhi High Court continued to maintain that common or descriptive elements cannot be exclusively owned, especially when they are part of the public domain or language.
For law students like me, this case highlights how tricky trademark protection can be when it comes to descriptive or common words. The Indian Trademark Act, 1999 protects marks that are distinctive, either inherently or through long and continuous use. Section 9 of the Act excludes words that are descriptive or generic unless they have acquired distinctiveness over time. In the case of “Pe,” the Court found it difficult to accept that consumers directly link it with PhonePe alone, because the word is used widely in everyday speech and by many other businesses in India.
The decision also reminds us that trademarks must be looked at as a whole, not in isolated parts. The comparison is based on the overall impression created in the minds of ordinary consumers. So, the question is not whether one word overlaps, but whether the entire mark creates a similar idea or look that might confuse customers. This principle has been followed in several earlier cases such as Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. (2001), where the Supreme Court emphasized the importance of considering overall impression rather than microscopic comparison of individual parts.
Beyond the technical legal reasoning, the case also raises questions about how language, culture, and business interact. The use of Hindi words in trademarks shows how Indian companies are increasingly embracing local identity in branding. But it also shows the limits of trying to monopolize language that belongs to everyone. If every company could claim ownership over common words like “on,” “for,” or “with,” the trademark system would collapse under its own weight. The Delhi High Court’s decision tries to protect creativity and competition at the same time by ensuring that businesses cannot block others from using ordinary words unless they have truly built a distinctive reputation around them.
Another important takeaway is how courts handle the balance between innovation and fairness in the digital economy. Both PhonePe and BharatPe are key players in India’s fintech ecosystem. Their rivalry represents a broader tension between established startups and emerging competitors. By refusing to grant a sweeping injunction, the court ensured that competition remains open and that smaller players are not pushed out of the market through overly aggressive trademark enforcement.
For students studying intellectual property law, this case is a perfect example of how courts apply basic principles in a modern business context. It teaches us that trademarks are not just legal tools but also reflections of how society uses and understands language. It also shows that legal battles in the digital age are not only about words or logos, but about market perception, consumer psychology, and brand identity.
In my view, the PhonePe vs BharatPe case is a healthy reminder that legal rights should not come at the cost of fair competition. While companies have every right to protect their identity, they should not try to own parts of a language that everyone uses. The judgment strikes a practical balance, encouraging innovation without letting powerful players dominate the market through overreaching claims.
Overall, this case has become a landmark in Indian trademark jurisprudence. It reinforces that the scope of trademark protection depends on distinctiveness, context, and real consumer association. For young entrepreneurs, it is a lesson in the importance of originality in branding. For law students, it is a window into how courts interpret legal principles in a rapidly evolving business environment. And for ordinary consumers, it simply ensures that choice and competition remain alive, even in a world increasingly shaped by big brands and big money.
Author:– Sanskriti Sharma, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us atsupport@ipandlegalfilings.com or IP & Legal Filing.
