Madras High Court Lets Udaipur Salon Keep ‘Bounce,’ Vacates Injunction In Trademark Dispute; Says Word Is Generic And No Deceptive Similarity
Safiya Malik
The High Court of Judicature at Madras, Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar vacated the interim injunction earlier granted in favour of a salon chain over the use of the trademark “BOUNCE”. The Court held that the defendant’s use of the mark “Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio” in Udaipur was not deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s “BOUNCE” mark, which was found to be a generic term common in the beauty trade. Observing that the plaintiff’s operations were limited to metropolitan cities while the defendant’s business was confined to Udaipur, the Court directed that the injunction restraining the defendant from using the mark be lifted, noting that the alleged infringement and passing-off issues would be determined at trial.
The dispute arose between a private limited company operating multiple salons under the registered trademark “BOUNCE” and an individual running beauty salons in Udaipur under the name “Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio.” The plaintiff, claiming ownership of the registered trademark “BOUNCE,” sought protection against alleged infringement and passing off, asserting that the defendant’s use of an identical name caused confusion and diluted its goodwill.
The plaintiff stated that the mark “BOUNCE” was conceptualized in 2004, registered under application number 1278997, and used extensively across India, gaining distinctiveness in the beauty and haircare industry. The plaintiff further asserted that the defendant filed an application in 2023 to register a similar mark, which the plaintiff opposed. After issuing cease and desist notices, the plaintiff alleged continued unauthorized use by the defendant and initiated proceedings seeking an interim injunction.
The defendant filed applications to vacate the ex-parte injunction, contending that its mark “Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio” was phonetically and visually distinct, operated only within Udaipur, and targeted a local clientele. It was further contended that “bounce” is a descriptive term commonly used in hairstyling, and the plaintiff could not claim exclusive rights over it. The defendant argued that the plaintiff’s lack of operations in Udaipur disproved any likelihood of confusion.
Both parties cited precedents to support their claims, including Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd. The case involved interpretation of Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, regarding the scope of exclusive rights over parts of composite marks and whether “BOUNCE” constituted a generic term common to the trade.
Justice N. Senthilkumar recorded that “there are notable differences in the trademark, logo and design of the plaintiff and defendant.” The Court observed that “the plaintiff's trademark consists of only the word ‘BOUNCE’,” whereas “the defendant has used the mark ‘Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio’.” The judgment further noted that “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’.”
The Court recorded that “the plaintiff is operating in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad and the defendant is operating only in Udaipur.” In examining statutory context, the Court cited Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, stating that “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.” It further stated that “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.”
Justice Senthilkumar observed that “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.” The Court found that “the defendant is entitled to use the trademark ‘Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio’ taken as a whole as per Section 17 of the Trademarks Act, 1999.”
In addressing precedent, the Court discussed Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and noted that “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.”
Referring to Cadila Health Care Ltd. v. Cadila Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court cited that in determining deceptive similarity, “the nature of the marks, degree of resemblance, nature of goods, class of purchasers, mode of purchasing, and surrounding circumstances” must be considered. The Court also quoted Maria Margadia Sequeria Fernandes v. Erasmo Jack De Sequeria, stating that “grant or refusal of an injunction in a civil suit is the most important stage in the civil trial” and “due care, caution, diligence and attention must be bestowed by the judicial officers.”
The Court observed that “till the disposal of the suit if the injunction order continues, it will cause irreparable damages to the defendant.”
The Court directed that “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.” It further ordered that “A.No.3226 of 2025 and A.No.3227 of 2025 are allowed and A.Nos.4221 to 4236 of 2025 are closed.” The judgment recorded that “whether the defendant has infringed the trademark of the plaintiff is a matter for trial,” and observed that “there is no justification in curtailing the business operation of the defendant who is based in Udaipur.” The Court concluded that continuing the injunction “will cause irreparable damages to the defendant” and therefore directed its vacation.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Applicant Mr. M.S. Bharath
For the Respondent: Mr. A. Jayesh Kumar Daga
Case Title: Spalon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Maya Choudhary
Case Number: C.S. (Comm. Div.) No. 56 of 2025
Bench: Justice N. Senthilkumar
