Spalon India Private Limited Vs Mr Suresh Sole Proprietor of Bounce — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Spalon India Private Limited Vs Mr Suresh Sole Proprietor of Bounce — Madras HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Interim injunctions granted on 05.01.2026 in both applications made absolute, restraining the defendant's use of the impugned marks containing the word BOUNCE.

Issue for consideration

Whether the defendant's use of marks containing the word BOUNCE, in view of the plaintiff's prior use of the mark BOUNCE from 12.02.2004 and both parties providing identical services, is likely to cause confusion or deception and irreparable hardship warranting an interim injunction. +1 more

Court's answer

The plaintiff is the prior user of the mark BOUNCE from 12.02.2004; the defendant's marks contain the word BOUNCE; and both the plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in the provision of identical services.

Ratio / Principle

Usage of the impugned marks is likely to cause confusion or deception to the relevant section of the public.

Key takeaways

Unless restrained at that juncture, irreparable hardship would likely be caused to the plaintiff.ratio¶25
For the reasons recorded at the hearing on 05.01.2026, the orders of interim injunction are made absolute and both applications are allowed.ratio¶26

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Madras High Court (Commercial Division), Coram: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy J. — Common order dated 16.02.2026 in O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025. The defendant (Mr.Suresh, sole proprietor of 'Bounce, The Family Saloon', Visakhapatnam) refused to receive notice of the interim applications; based on the affidavit of service dated 09.01.2026 with tracking report, the matter proceeded ex parte. On the strength of its recorded findings that the applicant/plaintiff (Spalon India Private Limited) is the prior user of the mark BOUNCE from 12.02.2004, that the defendant's marks contain the word BOUNCE, that both parties render identical services, and that use of the impugned marks was likely to cause confusion or deception to the relevant section of the public and irreparable hardship to the plaintiff unless restrained, the Court made the interim injunctions (granted on 05.01.2026 until the next date of hearing) absolute and allowed both applications. No statutes or precedents were cited.

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025

in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025

in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025

Spalon India Private Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory Ms.Sneh Asit Koticha, 2^nd Floor, Saba House, No.209/A, St. Mary’s Road, Alwarpet, Chennai – 600 018.

... Applicant in both applications

vs.

Mr.Suresh Sole Proprietor of Bounce, The Family Saloon, D.No.10-53-265/5, Near Pydah Degree College, Opp. Bombay Food Zone, Raghavendraswamy Temple Down Road, Ram Nagar – 530 002, Visakhapatnam. … Respondent in both applications

For Applicant : Mr.M.S.Bharath in both applications

1/4

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

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025

COMMON ORDER

At the hearing on 28.01.2026, the tracking report enclosed

with affidavit of service dated 09.01.2026 was taken note of and it was recorded that the defendant had refused to receive notice in the interim applications. After directing that the name of the respondent be printed in the cause list for the hearing on 05.01.2026, the applicant/plaintiff was heard on 05.01.2026. On that date, an order of interim injunction was granted until the next date of hearing, and the plaintiff was permitted to communicate the order to the defendant.

Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff has filed affidavit of service dated 09.01.2026 enclosing the tracking report evidencing refusal by the defendant to receive notice.

In these circumstances, the matter is proceeded with in the absence of the defendant. At the hearing on 05.01.2026, it was recorded in the relevant paragraphs as under:

2/4

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

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025

‘4. The plaintiff has placed on record evidence that it is the prior user of the mark BOUNCE from 12.02.2004. The defendant’s marks contain the word BOUNCE. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in the provision of identical services.

5. Considering the aforesaid, it is likely that the usage of the impugned marks would cause confusion or deception to the relevant section of the public. Unless restrained at this juncture, it is also likely that irreparable hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of interim injunction as prayed for in these two applications is granted until the next date of hearing.’

For reasons set out in the above extracted paragraphs, the orders of interim injunction are made absolute and these applications are allowed.

16.02.2026

mmi

3/4

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

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi

O.A.Nos.1143 and 1144 of 2025 in C.S(Comm.Div)No.319 of 2025

16.02.2026

4/4

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