Madras High Court
Spalon India Private Limited vs Maya Choudhary on 21 November, 2025
Author: G.Jayachandran
Bench: G.Jayachandran
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED:21.11.2025
CORAM:
THE HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE G.JAYACHANDRAN
and
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
and
C.M.P.Nos.28427, 28729, 28734, 28737, 28738, 28740, 28743, 28744,
28749 & 28750 of 2025
Spalon India Private Limited
Rep. by its Authorized Representative,
Ms.Sneh Koticha,
2nd Floor, Saba House,
No 209/A, St.Mary’s Road
Alwarpet,Chennai 600018 .. Appellant in all OSAs
Vs.
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 1st Floor, Savina Main Road., Opp.SBI
Sector 11, Railway Colony, Udaipur,
1/7
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
Rajasthan, India 313 001. .. Respondent in all OSAs
COMMON PRAYER: Original Side Appeal (CAD) is filed under
Section 13(1-A) of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 read with Order 36
Rule 9 of O.S.Rules, praying to set aside the order dated 24-10-2025
passed by the Learned Judge in A.Nos.3227 & 3226 of 2025
O.A.Nos.178, 177, 176, 179 of 2025 in C.S(Com.Div).No.56 of 2025 on
the file of this Court.
For Appellant : Mr.Satish Kumar
for Mr.M.S.Bharath in all OSAs
For Respondent : Mr.Srinath Sridevan
for Mr.A.Jayesh Kumar Daga in all OSAs
COMMON JUDGMENT
The “Bounce” word mark and trademark used in business of
hairdressing is the subject matter of these appeals.
2. The Interlocutory application filed seeking an interim injunction
was considered at the time of admission and an exparte interim injunction
was granted. Thereafter, the respondent/defendant filed an application to
vacate the injunction. The learned Single Judge, after considering the rival
submissions, found that, in his prima facie opinion, there is a notable
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
difference in the trademark, logo and design of the plaintiff and the
defendant. His conclusion regarding the rival claims is as below:-
“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 Chennai, Bengaluru
and Hyderabad and the defendant is operating only in
Udaipur.”
3. After considering the judicial pronouncements on
infringement, the learned Single Judge vacated the interim order
granted in favour of the plaintiff on 12.03.2025 and allowed the
application in A.Nos.3226 and 3227 of 2025. Being aggrieved, the
present appeals are filed by the plaintiff.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
4. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
learned Single judge had compared only the word “Bounce”,
ignoring the fact that the plaintiff/appellant also holds the word
mark “Bounce” and the notable difference pointed out by the
learned Single Judge are merely illusory. The learned counsel also
took efforts to impress upon this Court to make a comparison of
the two marks and to consider the investigation report obtained
from a private agency at the instance of the appellant.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the
trade as such is confined to a specific territory. The apprehensions
and allegations raised by the plaintiff, who carries on business in
Chennai, are unfounded as the defendant carries on business in
Udaipur, Rajesthan. It is contended that the allegations of
infringement are incorrect and have already been considered by
the learned Single Judge, who vacated the earlier exparte interim
order.
6. The learned counsel also submitted that the defendant has
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
only three outlets and presently has no intention of expanding her
business. Whereas, the plaintiff, who has no presence in Udaipur,
Rajasthan or has no prima facie case to seek an injunction, leaving
aside the merits.
7. This Court finds that the submissions made by the learned
counsel for the respondent are absolutely acceptable and in
consonance with Judicial pronouncements. We are of the opinion
that the present appeals have been filed just to protract and
frustrate the process of trial pending before the learned Single
Judge. Hence, We find no merit in these appeals.
8. Accordingly, these Original Side Appeals (CAD) stand
dismissed. Consequently, the connected Civil Miscellaneous
Petitions are closed. No costs.
[Dr.G.J., J.] & [M.S.K., J.]
21.11.2025
Index : Yes/No
Internet : Yes/No
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
rpl
Dr.G.JAYACHANDRAN., J.
and
MUMMINENI SUDHEER KUMAR., J.
rpl
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
21.11.2025
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 25/11/2025 04:18:34 pm )
