Kiran Raj

The Delhi High Court has issued an injunction against Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd, restraining them from using, advertising, adopting, or displaying the "SAMMAAN" marks, finding them to be deceptively similar to the registered trademarks of Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd. The court, through its judgment dated February 18, 2025, observed that the impugned marks could lead to confusion among consumers, thereby constituting trademark infringement.

The case arose from appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against the order of a learned Single Judge, who had issued an injunction on February 10, 2025, in favour of Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd. The respondent, Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd, alleged that the appellants had adopted the "SAMMAAN" marks, which were deceptively similar to its registered trademarks. The respondent contended that this similarity was likely to cause confusion among the public and that the appellants' adoption of "SAMMAAN" was deliberate and dishonest.

The respondent is the registered proprietor of multiple trademarks under different classes for "SVAMAAN," including word and device marks in Classes 9, 16, 35, 36, and 42. The marks were registered and validly renewed until various dates extending up to 2028. The respondent has been using the "SVAMAAN" mark for several years in the financial sector, particularly in providing micro-financing solutions.

The appellants, formerly known as Indiabulls Housing Finance Ltd and Indiabulls Commercial Credit Ltd, changed their corporate names to Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd in May 2024. They applied for the registration of trademarks using the "SAMMAAN" name and began using it in connection with their financial services. The respondent, upon learning about this, issued a cease-and-desist notice on November 20, 2023, objecting to the use of the allegedly infringing marks.

The appellants contended that their marks were adopted in good faith after thorough research and that their services were distinct from those of the respondent. They stated that they catered to a different consumer segment, primarily providing high-value loans exceeding ₹40 lakh, while the respondent focused on micro-financing. Additionally, the appellants argued that their corporate branding, visual presentation, and marketing materials clearly differentiated them from the respondent and minimized any likelihood of confusion.

The respondent countered these arguments by asserting that the phonetic and conceptual similarity between "SVAMAAN" and "SAMMAAN" created a strong potential for consumer confusion. The respondent argued that financial services operate on a broad spectrum and that clients, especially those with limited financial literacy, could mistake the appellants' services for those of the respondent.

The Division Bench, comprising Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul, examined the case based on the principles of trademark infringement and passing off. The court considered various aspects, including phonetic similarity, conceptual overlap, prior use, and potential consumer confusion.

1. Phonetic and Structural Similarity: The court observed that the marks "SVAMAAN" and "SAMMAAN" were nearly identical in pronunciation, differing only by the presence of the letter "V." It stated that phonetic resemblance is a critical factor in trademark infringement cases and that the difference in spelling was insufficient to distinguish the two marks in oral communication.

2. Conceptual Similarity and Consumer Confusion: The court recorded that both marks conveyed a similar conceptual meaning, suggesting honor and trust. Given that both companies operated in the financial sector, the court found a high probability that consumers might associate the two entities with each other, leading to confusion.

3. Prior Knowledge of Respondent’s Mark: The court noted that the appellants had prior knowledge of the respondent’s registered trademarks before adopting "SAMMAAN," as evidenced by the cease-and-desist notice sent in November 2023. Despite this notice, the appellants proceeded with the rebranding, which the court viewed as suggestive of bad faith.

4. Legal Protection of Registered Word Mark: The court reiterated that the respondent’s registration of "SVAMAAN" as a word mark entitled it to statutory protection. The fact that the appellants added descriptive words like "Capital" and "Finserv" did not mitigate the likelihood of confusion or constitute a valid defense against infringement.

5. Disclaimers and Branding Differences: The appellants argued that they prominently included the phrase "formerly known as Indiabulls" in their marketing materials to distinguish themselves. However, the court found that such disclaimers did not eliminate consumer confusion, particularly in verbal and informal transactions where the marks alone would be referenced.

6. Balance of Convenience: The court determined that the balance of convenience favored the respondent. It reasoned that allowing the appellants to continue using the "SAMMAAN" mark could erode the respondent’s brand identity and market goodwill. Additionally, the appellants had been operating under their new branding for a relatively short time compared to the respondent’s established reputation.

7. Regulatory Approvals: The court also examined the regulatory approvals obtained by the appellants, including their registration with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI) and the National Housing Board. However, it observed that such approvals did not constitute a legal defense against trademark infringement, as regulatory compliance was independent of intellectual property rights.

8. Potential Future Expansion: The court rejected the appellants’ argument that their business model was distinct from the respondent’s. It noted that companies in the financial sector often expand their offerings and that the respondent’s future entry into the high-value loan segment could be hindered by the presence of a similar-sounding competitor.

The Delhi High Court upheld the injunction issued by the learned Single Judge, thereby restraining Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd from using the "SAMMAAN" marks in any form, including in their corporate names, branding, or promotional materials. The court refused to grant interim relief to the appellants and scheduled the final hearing of the appeals for April 21, 2025.

The court directed that the appellants must cease all use of the "SAMMAAN" marks immediately and make the necessary changes to their branding and corporate identity to ensure compliance with the order. Additionally, the court instructed relevant authorities, including the Registrar of Companies, to take note of the decision and ensure its enforcement.

Case Title: Sammaan Capital Ltd & Ors. v. Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd & Ors.

Case Number: FAO(OS) (COMM) 26/2025 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 27/2025

Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul

[Read/Download order]