BharatPe hits out at PhonePe amid clash in HC, calls latter's case a 'publicity stunt'

In a fresh escalation, digital payment applications PhonePe and BharatPe clashed in courts over the use of the suffix 'Pe' on Friday. On October 22, PhonePe filed an injunction against BharatPe before the Bombay HC over its use of 'Pe' in its new Buy Now Pay Later (BNPL) platform’s name PostPe. Hitting out at the injunction, BharatPe called the complaint a 'publicity stunt' and claimed that the company had 'turned turtle' over its claim of inventing the word 'Pe' before the court.

"We do not want to comment on any part of yesterday’s proceedings in the Bombay HC that have not been recorded in the order passed. In order to maintain the dignity of the legal process, we would await receipt of the order passed by the Hon’ble Bombay HC yesterday before embarking on a publicity stunt like PhonePe has indulged in," said BharatPe in a statement. 

PhonePe turned 'turtle' on its stance before HC: BharatPe

Shortly after filing the injunction, PhonePe had withdrawn its complaint to 'address observations' made by the Bombay HC. BharatPe has claimed that PhonePe's act of filing and withdrawing the injunction is an attempt by the company to threaten them. “The bottom line remains that PhonePe has withdrawn the suit it filed against our use of PostPe. Needless to say, we will continue to strongly defend any legal action that PhonePe threatens to institute against us," the spokesperson stated.

“What is important to note is that in the Bombay High Court yesterday, PhonePe turned turtle as regards its previous stand before the Delhi High Court of emphasising on its so-called inventive word ‘Pe’," the BharatPe spokesperson added. 

The entire row dates back to 2019 when PhonePe claimed that the suffix 'Pe' is the company’s registered trademark and objected to its usage by BharatPe. In September 2019, it moved the Delhi HC against the competitor for using the suffix. The Delhi High Court had dismissed PhonePe’s plea and had noted that BharatPe was not in violation of the trademark.