Disposed

Spalon India Private Limited v. Mr Mayur Sole Proprietor of Hair Bounce Unisex Salon

Madras HC23 Feb 2026OA/1147/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Applicant holding multiple BOUNCE registrations sought interim injunctions restraining the respondent's use of HAIR BOUNCE UNISEX SALON for identical salon services. With the respondent unrepresented and prior user from 2004 established, the ad-interim injunction was made absolute.

What did the court decide?

Ad-interim injunctions restraining the respondent from using HAIR BOUNCE UNISEX SALON or deceptively similar marks made absolute until disposal of the suit.

Spalon India Private Limited Vs Mr Mayur Sole… — Intellectual Property | Madras HC (2026)

¶1

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

DATED: 23-02-2026

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY

¶6

OA Nos. 1147 to 1149 of 2025 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 320 OF 2025

¶7

Spalon India Private Limited 2nd Floor Saba House No 209 A St Mary s Road Alwarpet Chennai 600018

¶8

..Applicant(s)

¶9

¶10

Mr Mayur Sole Proprietor of Hair Bounce Unisex Salon 12/2, 2nd Floor, Subbishku Elite, Alpine Eco Road, Ferns City, Doddanekkundi, Bengaluru, Karnataka-560037, India

¶11

..Respondent(s)

¶12

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶13

PRAYER : To grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the

¶14

Respondent/Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, any products, offering service and in any other manner directly or indirectly, online, or offline, dealing with any service in the name of HAIR BOUNCE UNISEX SALON and which is identical to the Plaintiffs registered trademark BOUNCE amounting to infringement of the Applicants/ Plaiintiffs registered trademarks, bearing the applications Nos.1278997 under class 42, 2371476 under class 44, 2371477 under class 26, 2371478 under class 11, 2371479 under class 21, 2375804 under

¶15

Page1 of 5

¶16

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

¶17

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶18

class 41, 2375805 under class 44, 3381492 under class 44, 3381493 under class

¶19

44 and 5730239 under class 41 in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.

¶20

OA No. 1148 of 2025

¶21

PRAYER : To grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the

¶22

Respondent/Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, any products, offering service and in any other manner directly or indirectly, online, or offline, dealing with any service in the name of HAIR BOUNCE UNISEX SALON and or any other mark which is identical/similar to the Applicants/Plaintiffs registered trademarks BOUNCE and such other marks and passing off the goods/services of the Respondent/ Defendant as and for those of the Applicant/plaintiff in any manner whatsoever, pending disposal of the suit.

¶23

OA No. 1149 of 2025

¶24

PRAYER : To grant an ad-interim injunction restraining the Respondent/Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from using mark HARI HAIR BOUNCE UNSEX SALON and or any mark which is deceptively simalar and or identical to the Applicants/ Plaintiffs registered trademark BOUNCE in any of the websites, domain names, social media platforms, email address, mobile application and other intermediaries in any language in any manner whatsoever,

¶25

Page2 of 5

¶26

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

¶27

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶28

pending disposal of the suit.

¶29

In all applications

¶30

For Applicant(s):

¶31

Ms.Reshma Rajagopal for M/s.MS Bharath

¶32

Order

¶33

At the hearing on 28.01.2026, the Registry was directed to print the name

¶34

of the respondent in the cause list. The name of the respondent is printed in the cause list for today’s hearing. The respondent, however, continues to remain unrepresented.

¶35

While granting an ad interim injunction on 05.01.2026, it was recorded, in relevant part, as under:

¶36

“3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff invited my attention to the registration of the word mark BOUNCE in Class 44 in relation to hygiene and beauty care. He also points out that multiple word and device mark registrations were obtained by the plaintiff by asserting use since 12.02.2004. He next invited my attention to the impugned mark HAIR BOUNCE UNISEX SALON. In spite of issuance of cease and desist notice before filing the suit, he submits that the defendant did not even respond thereto.

¶37

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.

¶38

Page3 of 5

¶39

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

¶40

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶41

5. Considering the aforesaid, it is likely that the usage of the

¶42

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.”

¶43

For reasons set out above and in view of the respondent continuing to

¶44

remain unrepresented in these proceedings, the order of interim injunction in O.A.Nos.1147 to 1149 of 2025 is made absolute and the said applications are disposed of.

23-02-2026

(1/2)

RNA

__________ Page4 of 5

¶49

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

¶50

OA No. 1147 of 2025

¶51

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J.

¶52

RNA

¶53

OA Nos. 1147 to 1149 of 2025 IN C.S(COMM DIV) NO. 320 OF 2025

¶54

23-02-2026 (1/2)

¶55

__________ Page5 of 5

¶56

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

Spalon India Private Limited v. Mr Mayur Sole Proprietor of Hair Bounce Unisex Salon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Spalon India Private Limited v. Mr Mayur Sole Proprietor of Hair Bounce Unisex Salon

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tvl Ags Irrigation Vs Appellate Authority

B.Kamroon Vs The District Collector/ Sole Arbitrator

B.Kamroon Vs The District Collector/ Sole Arbitrator

Sunny Bhawarlal Jain and Ors. Vs Babita and Ors.

A D Padmasingh Isaac and 2 Others Vs Haris Achi Mess

Ms Sns Movies Productions LLP Vs Mr Manjunath