Brand Hijacking: Bombay High Court Intervenes After Franchisee Continues Salon Branding Post-Contract

In a significant ruling for franchise integrity, the High Court of Bombay has granted an ad-interim injunction against Kavita Janki Services Private Limited, restraining the entity from unauthorized use of "Jawed Habib" trademarks and logos. The court’s decision underscores the strictly delimited nature of permitted trademark use once a commercial franchise agreement reaches its term.

The Breakdown of a Professional Relationship

The conflict arose from a franchise agreement originally executed on May 20, 2014, which permitted the defendant to operate a salon under the established "Jawed Habib" brand. According to the court records, this permission remained valid until May 19, 2017.

Despite the formal expiration of the agreement, the plaintiff, Jawed Habib Hair & Beauty Limited , alleged that the defendant continued to operate using its copyrighted artistic labels and registered trademarks. Following a period of non-compliance after a cease and desist notice issued on June 24, 2024, the plaintiff filed a commercial IP suit seeking to protect its intellectual property and prevent potential consumer deception.

Arguments Presented

Counsel for the plaintiff demonstrated that the goodwill associated with the brand—built since its incorporation in 2006—was being compromised by the defendant's unauthorized operations. The plaintiff provided registration certificates to establish ownership of the "Jawed Habib" and "JH Logo" marks, as well as an additional affidavit with photographic evidence from December 2025 documenting the defendant's continued use of the branding.

The defendant, despite being served with notice and the current proceedings, failed to appear before the court. Consequently, the proceedings remained unopposed, leaving the court to rely heavily on the plaintiff's documentation of proprietary rights and the expired franchise mandate.

Court’s Legal Reasoning

Justice Sharmila U. Deshmukh found that the franchise agreement served as prima facie evidence of the plaintiff's ownership and the limitations placed upon the defendant's use. The court reasoned that once the agreement terminated due to the efflux of time, the defendant possessed no independent legal basis to continue using the trademark for identical salon services. By allowing the plaintiff's motion, the court affirmed that intellectual property rights explicitly excluded the defendant from continued use upon the contract's expiry.

Furthermore, the court permitted the Leave Petition under Clause XIV of the Letters Patent (Bombay), allowing the plaintiff to combine its cause of action for passing off with its claims of trademark and copyright infringement, thereby streamlining the legal pursuit for relief.

Key Observations

The High Court’s ruling highlighted the clear boundaries of commercial agreements:

• "Upon the expiry of the franchise agreement by reason of efflux of time, the Defendant is no longer permitted to use the registered trade marks of the Plaintiff."
• "There is no probable defense as the franchise agreement demonstrates that the Defendant cannot claim any independent right in use of the registered trademarks upon expiry of the franchise agreement."
• "The proprietary right of the Plaintiff in the registered trademarks is prima facie demonstrated from the registration certificates which are appended to the Plaint."

Implications for Future Litigation

This decision acts as a potent reminder to franchise operators regarding the strict boundaries of their commercial rights. For the salon industry, the ruling reinforces that brand identity remains the exclusive property of the franchisor, and continued usage post-contract functions as a clear infringement of the Trademark Act. The injunction stands until February 3, 2026, forcing a halt to the unauthorized use of the "Jawed Habib" brand and providing a clear path for the plaintiff to protect its market reputation from dilution.