Maya Choudhary Trading as Bounce Saloon and Makeover Studio Vs Spalon India Private Limited

¶1

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Reserved on Pronounced on 03.09.2025 24.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HONOURABLE MR.J USTICE N.SENTHILKUMAR

¶6

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

¶7

Spalon India Private Limited Represented by its authorised representative Ms.Sneh Koticha 2nd Floor Saba House No 209/A St Mary's Road, ... Applicant(s) A.Nos.4221 to 4236 of 2025 Alwarpet, Chennai 600018 ... Respondent in A.Nos.3226, 3227 of 2025 Vs

¶8

Maya Choudhary, Trading as Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001. Also at, 1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir, Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001 ... Respondent(s) in A.Nos.4221 Also at, First Floor, Savina Main Road, to 4236 of 2025 Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, ... Applicant in A.Nos.3226 Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001. & 3227 of 2025

¶9

1/24

¶10

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶11

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶12

PRAYER in A No. 3226 of 2025

¶13

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 12/03/2025 granted in O.A.No.177 of 2025.

¶14

PRAYER in A No. 3227 of 2025

¶15

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 4 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 12/03/2025 granted in O.A.NO.176 of 2025.

¶16

PRAYER in A No. 4221 of 2025

¶17

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct Maya Choudhary of Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to be detained in Civil prison for a period of three months for disobeying and violating the order passed by this Court dated 12/03/2025.

¶18

PRAYER in A No. 4222 of 2025

¶19

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to remove the Applicant's/Applicant's/ Plaintiff's registered trademark BOUNCE from all the hoardings, boards, signages, business cards letter heads, mentioning/listing on online portal, social media handles, invoices, price list menu cards and every other place the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant continues to do so.

¶20

PRAYER in A No. 4223 of 2025

¶21

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to attach the premises, especially the salons operating at the following locations:

¶22

2/24

¶23

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶24

1stst Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road,

¶25

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶26

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶27

1stst Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001.

¶28

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶29

1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir,

¶30

Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001

¶31

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio First Floor, Savina Main Road, Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001

¶32

PRAYER in A No. 4224 of 2025

¶33

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass appropriate order(s) against the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant for disobedience of the Common order dated 12/03/2025 passed in O.A.No.176 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.56 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

¶34

PRAYER in A No. 4225 of 2025

¶35

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct Maya Choudhary of Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to be detained in Civil prison for a period of three months for disobeying and violating the order passed by this Court dated 12/03/2025.

¶36

PRAYER in A No. 4226 of 2025

¶37

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the

¶38

3/24

¶39

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶40

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶41

Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to remove the Applicant's/Applicant's/ Plaintiff's registered trademark BOUNCE from all the hoardings, boards, signages, business cards, letter heads, mentioning/listing on online portals, social media handles, invoices, price list, menu cards and every order other place the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant continues to do so.

¶42

PRAYER in A No. 4227 of 2025

¶43

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to attach the premises, especially the salons operating at the following locations:

¶44

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001.

¶45

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶46

1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir, Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001

¶47

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio First Floor, Savina Main Road, Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001

¶48

PRAYER in A No. 4228 of 2025

¶49

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass appropriate order(s) against the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant for disobedience of the Common order dated 12/03/2025 passed in O.A.No.177 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.56 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

¶50

4/24

¶51

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶52

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶53

PRAYER in A No. 4229 of 2025

¶54

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct Maya Choudhary of Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to be detained in Civil prison for a period of three months for disobeying and violating the order passed by this Court dated 12/03/2025.

¶55

PRAYER in A No. 4230 of 2025

¶56

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to remove the Applicant's/Applicant's/ Plaintiff's registered trademark BOUNCE from all the hoardings, boards, signages, business cards, letter heads, mentioning/listing on online portal, social media handles, invoices, price list, menu cards and every other place the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant continues to do so.

¶57

PRAYER in A No. 4231 of 2025

¶58

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to attach the premises, especially the salons operating at the following locations:

¶59

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶60

1st Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001.

¶61

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶62

1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir, Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001

¶63

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio First Floor, Savina Main Road,

¶64

5/24

¶65

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶66

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶67

Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001.

¶68

PRAYER in A No. 4232 of 2025

¶69

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass appropriate order(s) against the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant for disobedience of the Common order dated 12/03/2025 passed in O.A..No.178 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.56 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

¶70

PRAYER in A No. 4233 of 2025

¶71

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct Maya Choudhary of Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to be detained in Civil prison for a period of three months for disobeying and violating the order passed by this Court dated 12/03/2025.

¶72

PRAYER in A No. 4234 of 2025

¶73

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to direct the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant to remove the Applicant's/Applicant's/ Plaintiff's registered trademark BOUNCE from all the hoardings, boards, signages, business cards, letter heads, mentioning/listing on online portal, social media handles, invoices, price list menu cards and every other place the Respondent continues to do so.

¶74

PRAYER in A No. 4235 of 2025

¶75

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to attach the premises, especially the salons operating at the following locations:

¶76

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶77

6/24

¶78

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶79

1stst Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road,

¶80

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶81

1stst Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001.

¶82

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio

¶83

1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir,

¶84

Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001

¶85

Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio First Floor, Savina Main Road, Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001.

¶86

PRAYER in A No. 4236 of 2025

¶87

Application filed under Order XIV, Rule 8 of O.S.Rules r/w.Order XXXIX Rule 2A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to pass appropriate order(s) against the Respondent/Respondent/Defendant for disobedience of the Common order dated 12/03/2025 passed in O.A.No.179 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.56 of 2025 on the file of this Court.

¶88

For Applicant in A.Nos.4221 to 4236 of 2025 Mr.MS Bharath and Respondent in A.Nos.3226, 3227 of 2025 :

¶89

For Respondent in A.Nos.4221 to 4236 of 2025 Mr.A.Jayesh Kumar Daga and Applicant in A.Nos.3226 & 3227 of 2025 :

¶90

COMMON ORDER

¶91

The case of the plaintiff is as follows:

¶92

The plaintiff is one of the premier salons and service providers in the

¶93

7/24

¶94

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶95

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶96

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.

¶97

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.

¶98

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

¶99

8/24

¶100

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶101

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶102

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.

¶103

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.

¶104

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.

¶105

9/24

¶106

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶107

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶108

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.

¶109

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 30^th January 2025.

¶110

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 plaintiff therefore believed that the defendant had stopped using the infringing marks in relation to their services. In December 2024, the plaintiff conducted another investigation into the business of the defendant, which reconfirmed the use of infringing marks. It was also revealed that the Defendant has expanded its business further by opening another outlet. Address of the second outlet is as follows:

¶111

10/24

¶112

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶113

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶114

S.No. Address

¶115

1 First Floor, Savina Main Road, Opp. SBI, Sector II, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan 313 001.

¶116

9.By virtue of the defendant's use of identical mark, get-up and colour combination, the plaintiff is suffering and is likely to suffer further dilution, diminution, weakening and eventual erosion of the goodwill, reputation and the positive association linked to its trademark 'BOUNCE' and its formative marks, which has been painstakingly built over extensive, long and continuous use.

¶117

10.The plaintiff has filed applications in O.A.No.176 to 179 of 2025 seeking interim injunction against the defendant for the alleged infringement and passing off of the registered trade mark of the plaintiff.

¶118

11.This Court by order dated 12.03.2025, granted interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff. The defendant has filed applications in A Nos.3226 & 3227 of 2025 to vacate the interim injunction granted by this Court on the earlier occasion.

¶119

11/24

¶120

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶121

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶122

12.The main contention of the defendant is that not only the marks are phonetically, visually, and structurally distinct, but the respective target audience are also entirely different. A customer seeking salon or makeover services in Chennai is highly unlikely to confuse or associate such services with a business located in Udaipur, and vice versa. The nature of the services rendered by the defendant are personal grooming and salon treatment which necessitates physical presence, unlike products that can be transported or sold across regions. As neither party is engaged in the sale of physical products, there is no question of infringement and passing off by the defendant.

¶123

13.The plaintiff has filed a common counter affidavit in the above applications and contended that the plaintiff's registration for the mark “BOUNCE” and its variants are pan India without any geographical restrictions or limitations. Further, their Spalon services are rendered in numerous cities across the country and not restricted to a particular location. The plaintiff contended that the defendant's misuse would hinder and restrict the plaintiff's ability to commercially expand their operations and business across all parts of India especially in the city of Udaipur where the defendant is located.

¶124

12/24

¶125

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶126

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶127

14.Learned counsel for the defendant submitted that the plaintiff has not filed even a single document such as assignment deed, trademark assignment form, or any official record to establish that the mark 'BOUNCE' was legally and validly assigned in its favour. In the absence of such foundational evidence, the plaintiff's assertion of proprietorship over the mark 'BOUNCE' and any of its formative marks is without merit and cannot be accepted.

¶128

15.Learned counsel for the defendant further contended that in hairstyling, 'bounce' describes hair that is full, healthy, and dynamic qualities highly sought after by clients looking for professional services. Given its clear descriptive relevance and industry wide appeal, the plaintiff cannot claim an absolute or exclusive monopoly over the generic term “BOUNCE”. Despite being fully aware of the defendant's operations through their own inquiry, the plaintiff merely issued two cease and desist notices in the same year and thereafter chose to remain silent. No legal proceedings were initiated immediately thereafter. This inaction, despite actual knowledge of the defendant's business, reflects deliberate delay and further negates the plaintiff's claim of irreparable harm and injury.

¶129

13/24

¶130

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶131

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶132

16.Learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the defendant's business operations are strictly limited to the city of Udaipur, Rajasthan, with only a few local outlets. According to the defendant, the plaintiff's operations under the trade mark 'BOUNCE' are confined to the metropolitan cities of Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. There is no material placed on record to show any commercial footprint, promotional activity, market penetration, or customer base in Udaipur or its surrounding regions. Accordingly, the defendant contended that the plaintiff cannot be permitted to claim exclusive rights in a region where it has no tangible existence or brand recognition.

¶133

17.A comparison of both marks would reveal the following differences in the marks:

¶134

*Plaintiff's mark*	*Defendant's mark*

¶135

18.In response to the above argument, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that the argument of the defendant that the mark has not been used specifically in Udaipur by the plaintiff, therefore the defendant is free to adopt

¶136

14/24

¶137

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶138

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶139

the same or a similar mark, is wholly misconceived, factually untenable and legally unsustainable. The plaintiff asserted that in the digital age where online commerce and virtual presence are integral to modern business operations, the geographical reach of a trademark cannot be confined to physical retail locations alone.

¶140

19.According to the plaintiff, the plaintiff's mark “BOUNCE” enjoys pan India recognition and protection, including in Udaipur by virtue of its online presence, nationwide delivery capabilities and continuous promotional and commercial use.

¶141

20.Learned counsel for the defendant further contended that the plaintiff has failed to establish the three necessary ingredients for injunctive relief, viz., prima facie case, irreparable loss, and balance of convenience. The defendant maintain that the interim order obtained by the plaintiff is unwarranted and should be vacated or suitably modified, as the defendant has not committed any trademark infringement and passing off.

¶142

21.Learned counsel for the plaintiff relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd., and 15/24

¶143

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶144

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶145

another Vs. Sudhir Bhatia and others reported in (2004) 3 Supreme Court Cases 90 , wherein it was held as follows:

¶146

“5.The law on the subject is well settled. In cases of infringement either of trade mark or of copyrights, normally an injunction must follow. Mere delay in bringing action is not sufficient to defeat grant of injunction in such cases. The grant of injunction also becomes necessary if it prima facie appears that the adoption of the mark was itself dishonest.”

¶147

By relying upon the judgment cited supra, the learned counsel for the plaintiff contended that this Court was pleased to grant an order of interim injunction as the plaintiff made out a prima facie case and the balance of convenience is in favour of the plaintiff.

¶148

22.Learned counsel for the defendant relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Arun Chopra Vs. Kaka-ka Dhaba Pvt. Ltd., and Ors. , wherein it was held as follows:

¶149

“11.It is not seriously in dispute that the defendants have been using the expression 'Kaka-ka' since at least 15 years in the city of Nazhik. They were earlier running four outlets but presently three outlets are operational. They have several employees and have gained reputation locally. The plaintiff has gained immense reputation in Delhi and the reputation may be spilled over in various parts of the country, but they have only one outlet. Various issues are to be adjudicated which would need evidence

¶150

16/24

¶151

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶152

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶153

including as to whether the defendants had knowledge of the plaintiff when they adopted their names/marks as also whether there is any likelihood of confusion owing to the geographical areas of operation.”

¶154

By placing reliance on the aforesaid judgment, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that whether there is likelihood of confusion in the minds of the customers in Chennai and other cities because of the operation of the defendant's outlet in Udaipur is to be determined by the Court after detailed adjudication. On the above grounds, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the defendant has sustained huge loss and damages due to the grant of interim injunction in favour of the plaintiff.

¶155

23.Heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff and the learned counsel for the defendant.

¶156

24.In respect of Applications viz., A No.4221 to 4236 of 2025, the learned counsel for the defendant contended that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient proof to establish the wilful disobedience of the injunction order passed by this Court.

¶157

17/24

¶158

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶159

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶160

25.After hearing the learned counsel for the defendant, it is clear that there are notable differences in the trademark, logo and design of the plaintiff and defendant. The plaintiff's trademark consist of only the word 'BOUNCE'. However, the defendant has used the mark 'Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio'. As rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the defendant, the defendant's logo depicts a graphic of a pair of scissors, surrounding this, there are eight stars arranged in a semi-circle and the logo also incorporates a circular seal with the words “Bounce Salon and makeover Studio”. That apart, the plaintiff is operating in C hennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad and the defendant is operating only in Udaipur.

¶161

26.It is appropriate to refer Section 17 of Trade Marks Act, 1999, which specifically reads as follows:

¶162

“17. Effect of registration of parts of a mark.

¶163

(1) When a trade mark consists of several matters, its registration shall confer on the proprietor exclusive right to the use of the trade mark taken as a whole .

¶164

(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when a trade mark

¶165

(a) contains any part—

¶166

(i) which is not the subject of a separate application by the proprietor for registration as a trade mark; or

¶167

18/24

¶168

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶169

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶170

(ii) which is not separately registered by the proprietor as a trade mark; or

¶171

(b) contains any matter which is common to the trade or is otherwise of a non-distinctive character,

¶172

the registration thereof shall not confer any exclusive right in the matter forming only a part of the whole of the trade mark so registered.”

¶173

The trademark registered by the plaintiff is “BOUNCE” which is a generic term common to the trade and also is of a non-distinctive character. Admittedly the defendant is carrying on business in the name of “Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio”. Therefore the defendant is entitled to use the trademark “Bounce Salon

¶174

and Makeover Studio” taken as a whole as per Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.

¶175

27.In the case of Midas Hygiene , though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that in cases of infringement of trademarks normally an injunction must follow, the same is not applicable to the present case as the trademark of the plaintiff is not deceptively similar to the trademark of the defendant.

¶176

28.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Cadila Health Care Ltd., Vs. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., reported in AIR 2001 SC 1952 , held as follows:

¶177

19/24

¶178

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶179

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶180

“35.

¶181

“35. Broadly stated, in an action for passing-off on the basis of unregistered trade mark generally for deciding the question of deceptive similarity the following factors are to be considered:

¶182

(a) The nature of the marks i.e. whether the marks are word marks or label marks or composite marks i.e. both words and label works.

¶183

(b) The degree of resembleness between the marks, phonetically similar and hence similar in idea.

¶184

(c) The nature of the goods in respect of which they are used as trade marks.

¶185

(d) The similarity in the nature, character and performance of the goods of the rival traders.

¶186

(e) The class of purchasers who are likely to buy the goods bearing the marks they require, on their education and intelligence and a degree of care they are likely to exercise in purchasing and/or using the goods.

¶187

(f) The mode of purchasing the goods or placing orders for the goods.

¶188

(g) Any other surrounding circumstances which may be relevant in the extent of dissimilarity between the competing marks.

¶189

29.The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Maria Margadia Sequeria

¶190

Fernandes & Ors Vs. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria (D) through Lrs. & Ors. has made the following observation:

¶191

“ Grant or refusal of an injunction

¶192

20/24

¶193

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶194

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶195

83.

¶196

83. Grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial. Due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers and Judges while granting or refusing injunction. In most cases, the fate of the case is decided by grant or refusal of an injunction. Experience has shown that once an injunction is granted, getting it vacated would become a nightmare for the defendant.

¶197

84. In order to grant or refuse injunction, the judicial officer or the Judge must carefully examine the entire pleadings and documents with utmost care and seriousness. The safe and better course is to give a short notice on the injunction application and pass an appropriate order after hearing both the sides. In case of grave urgency, if it becomes imperative to grant an ex parte ad interim injunction, it should be granted for a specified period, such as, for two weeks. In those cases, the plaintiff will have no inherent interest in delaying disposal of injunction application after obtaining an ex parte ad interim injunction.”

¶198

30.In the light of the above judicial pronouncements, it is clear that unless and until the court comes to the conclusion that the plaintiff has the exclusive right over the trademark 'BOUNCE' after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence, there is no justification in curtailing the business operation of the defendant who is based in Udaipur. Whether the defendant has infringed the trademark of the plaintiff is a matter for trial. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that till the disposal of suit if the injunction order continues, it will cause irreparable damages to the defendant.

¶199

21/24

¶200

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶201

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶202

31.In view of the above, the interim order of injunction granted earlier in favour of the plaintiff on 12.03.2025 in O.A.Nos,176 to 179 of 2025 stands vacated and A. No.3226 of 2025 & A. No.3227 of 2025 are allowed and A. Nos.4221 to 4236 of 2025 are closed. No costs.

¶203

24.10.2025 (½)

¶204

Index:Yes/No Speaking/Non-speaking order Internet:Yes Neutral Citation:Yes/No

¶205

sai

¶206

22/24

¶207

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶208

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶209

To

¶210

Maya Choudhary Trading as Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio 1st Floor, Ashok Nagar Main Road, Above Madame Outlet, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313001. Also at, 1st Floor, Centrum, Sukhadia Cir, Above Shivam Optical, Panchwati, Udaipur, Rajasthan, India 313 001 Also at, First Floor, Savina Main Road, Opp.SBI, Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur, Rajasthan India 313 001.

¶211

23/24

¶212

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶213

A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025

¶214

N.SENTHILKUMAR J.

¶215

sai

¶216

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