Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 63441
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. Senthilkumar, J
Spalon India Private Limited – Appellant
Versus
Maya Choudhary, Trading as Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio – Respondent
A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025 in OA Nos.176 to 179 of 2025 in C.S(COMM DIV) No.56 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Ms. Sneh Koticha, Mr. MS Bharath
For the Respondents: Mr. A. Jayesh Kumar Daga
The plaintiff's generic trademark 'BOUNCE' cannot claim exclusive rights, as the defendant's usage does not infringe or cause confusion in the market.
Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order XIV, Rule 8 and Order XXXIX, Rule 4 - Trademark infringement - Plaintiff alleged defendant's unauthorized use of the trademark 'BOUNCE' leading to confusion and harm to goodwill - Court vacated interim injunction on grounds that the trademarks were not deceptively similar, noting 'the defendant's logo depicts a graphic of a pair of scissors' and 'BOUNCE' is generic - Determination of exclusive rights under Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, 1999 highlighted. (Paras 26, 30)
(B) Injunction - Principles governing the grant of injunction applied; plaintiff failed to prove prima facie case and irreparable harm. (Paras 30, 27)
Facts of the case:
The plaintiff, a prominent salon with extensive use of the trademark 'BOUNCE', claimed infringement by the defendant, who registered a similar trademark in Udaipur. Plaintiff waited too long to initiate legal action despite knowledge of defendant's operations. (Paras 10, 11)
Findings of Court:
The injunction previously granted was vacated due to the defendant's use of the mark not being illegally similar and granted because the plaintiff did not prove exclusive rights to 'BOUNCE'. (Paras 30)
Issues: Whether the trademarks were deceptively similar, thus warranting an injunction and whether the plaintiff can claim exclusive rights in regions where it has no business presence. (Paras 26, 30)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court concluded that the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over a generic term and the defendant's operations are distinct enough not to infringe upon the plaintiff’s trademark. (Paras 26, 30)
Result: Interim injunction vacated; defendant allowed to continue operations. (Paras 31)
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. trademark recognition and distinctiveness. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. notice of opposition filing and trademark application process. (Para 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. consequences due to trademark infringement. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. defendant's counterarguments regarding trademark usage. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 5. plaintiff's legal standing for interim injunction. (Para 18 , 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 6. evaluating the similarities and differences in trademarks. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 7. legal standards for granting injunctive relief. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
| 8. court's decision to vacate the injunction. (Para 30 , 31) |
COMMON ORDER
The case of the plaintiff is as follows:
The plaintiff is one of the premier salons and service providers in the beauty and haircare industry. The plaintiff's founder and Managing Director, Mrs.Latha C.Mohan is a poineer in the field and has been a renowned name in the Beauty Care circuits over the years, since 1982. The plaintiff has been in the industry for almost 30 years. The plaintiff's brands in the beauty salon include the marks “KANYA”, “KANYA Beauty Parlour”, “ORYZA”, “BOUNCE”, “BOUNCE style Lounge” oldest of all in market since 1982 in respect of which the plaintiff applied for the trademark in 2013. The entire business of the above mentioned brands has been conducted and regulated by the Plaintiff under the trade name SPALON India Private Limited.
2.The trademark "BOUNCE" was conceptualized in 2004 when the concept of unisex salons was upcoming in South India. The Plaintiff's brand "BOUNCE" was exclusively targeted at the affluent members of the society. The trademark application for "BOUNCE" under trademark application number 1278997 was filed by the Plaintiff's founder in 2004.
3.The Plaintiff has been using these marks BOUNCE per se, BOUNCE Style Lounge and BOUNCE style Academy (hereinafter referred to as 'Bounce and its formative marks') uninterruptedly and extensively resulting in it gaining wide acclaim for quality, fashion statement and customer satisfaction. The trademark "BOUNCE" has gained large scale thriving and enormous goodwill. Thereby the Plaintiff's BOUNCE and its formative marks acquired secondary meaning in respect of the services offered in relation to the trademark.
4.The Plaintiff as a result of continuous and extensive use of "BOUNCE" and its formative marks uninterruptedly over a long period of time, i.e., for over 15 years, in relation to its Beauty salons, hygienic and Beauty skin clinic apart from applying it on the business cards, letter-heads, invoices, promotional materials, posters and signages and extensive media coverage, the Plaintiff's mark "BOUNCE" has acquired distinctiveness and is hence associated only with Plaintiff and no other person or entity.
5.The plaintiff during the fourth week of January 2023 came across the Defendant's Trademark Application for registration of the trademark 
(hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Trademark”) under Trademark Application Number 4258798 in Class 44, which was advertised in the Trademark Journal No.2087-0 dated 16.01.2023 at page No.4561. The said trademark application was filed with the user claim of 05.11.2017.
6.The plaintiff upon attaining knowledge that the impugned trademark was advertised in the Trademark Journal, filed Notice of Opposition on 02.03.2023, against the defendant's trademark application.
7.Thereafter, the defendant has filed the counter statement on 30.09.2023.
As on 05.09.2024, the Trademark registration is in the stage of filing of evidence in support of application and the present suit has been filed by the plaintiff on 30th January 2025.
8.According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff did not receive any response to the cease and desist notice dated 08.03.2023 & 26.06.2023 and waited patiently for the defendant to stop using the infringing marks. After delivery of the said noties, the plaintiff did not find usage of the infringing Marks by the defendant on their website or in any social media handles. The pla
