Summary
The Bounce trademark dispute involves competing salon businesses contesting the use of the mark BOUNCE for beauty and haircare services. Spalon India Private Limited, the plaintiff, claimed prior adoption and continuous use of the mark since 2004, while the defendant operated under a similar mark in Udaipur since 2017. The Madras High Court evaluated claims of exclusivity, likelihood of confusion, and the descriptive nature of the word bounce. At the interim stage, the Court vacated the earlier injunction against the defendant, noting that the issue of exclusive rights would require detailed trial evidence. The decision highlights the nuanced treatment of generic and descriptive marks in Indian trademark law.
Background
The Bounce trademark dispute arose from a conflict between competing salon businesses over the use of the mark BOUNCE for beauty and haircare services. Spalon India Private Limited, a leading player in the salon industry, traces the origin of its BOUNCE brand to 2004, when the concept of unisex salons was emerging in South India. The plaintiff has used the mark BOUNCE continuously since then and applied for trademark registration in the same year. Over the years, the plaintiff expanded its operations under the BOUNCE brand and its formative variants such as BOUNCE Style Lounge and BOUNCE Style Academy.
The defendant, Maya Choudhary, operates salons in Udaipur, Rajasthan under the name ‘Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio’. In 2023, the defendant applied for trademark registration of its mark in Class 44, claiming use since 2017. Upon discovering the application, the plaintiff initiated opposition proceedings and issued cease and desist notices in March and June 2023. Briefly, the plaintiff believed that there was no continued usage of the infringing mark. However, in December 2024 after conducting an investigation, the usage of the infringing mark was reconfirmed. Subsequently a commercial suit was filed alleging trademark infringement and passing off.
An ex parte interim injunction restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark was granted by the Madras High Court in March 2025. The present stage of the litigation concerns applications filed by the defendant seeking vacation of that injunction, forming a critical phase in the Bounce trademark dispute.
Plaintiff’s Contentions
-
- It was the prior adopter and user of the mark BOUNCE, having conceptualised and used it continuously since 2004 thereby acquiring strong goodwill and secondary meaning exclusively associated with its salon services.
- The defendant’s use of the identical dominant word BOUNCE for identical services was likely to cause confusion among consumers and dilute the distinctiveness of the plaintiff’s mark.
- Trademark protection in India is pan India in nature and not confined to the geographical areas where physical outlets exist. Any unauthorised use, even in a different city, could hinder the plaintiff’s ability to expand its business.
- Relying on settled principles of trademark law, the plaintiff asserted that delay in initiating the suit could not defeat a claim for injunction where infringement of a registered trademark was made out.
Defendant’s Contentions
-
- The marks were visually and structurally different, with the defendant using the composite mark Bounce Salon and Makeover Studio along with a distinct logo and artistic elements.
- The word bounce is descriptive in the hair and beauty industry and commonly used to describe volume and vitality of hair. As such, the plaintiff could not claim exclusivity over a generic or non-distinctive term.
- While relying on geographical separation, it was contended that the defendant’s business was limited to Udaipur Rajasthan, while the plaintiff primarily operated in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad. Since salon services require physical presence, the likelihood of consumer confusion across distant regions was minimal.
- The plaintiff did not provide sufficient proof to establish wilful disobedience of the injunction order. However, the defendant has sustained significant loss and damages due to the grant of the interim injunction.
- The plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, irreparable injury, or balance of convenience in its favour, hence, the interim relief was not justified.
Court’s Findings
While analysing the Bounce trademark dispute, the Madras High Court examined the rival marks and the nature of rights claimed by the plaintiff at the interim stage.
The Court noted that the plaintiff’s registration was for the standalone word BOUNCE, whereas the defendant used a composite mark with additional descriptive elements and a distinct logo. Referring to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act 1999, the Court observed that registration grants exclusive rights only over the mark taken as a whole and does not extend to non-distinctive or commonly used elements.
The Court also observed that the word bounce has a descriptive connotation in the beauty and hairstyling trade. Given the differing geographical areas of operation and the service-oriented nature of the businesses, the Court held that the likelihood of confusion could only be determined after full trial and not at the interim stage.
Decision
The Madras High Court vacated the interim injunction granted earlier in favour of the plaintiff. The Court held that, notwithstanding the plaintiff’s claim of use of the BOUNCE mark since 2004, the issue of exclusive rights and infringement required detailed evidence and adjudication at trial.
It was further observed that continuation of the injunction would cause irreparable harm to the defendant, while the plaintiff’s rights could be adequately protected through final adjudication. Accordingly, the applications seeking vacation of the injunction were allowed and the connected contempt related applications were closed.
Citation: Spalon India Private Limited vs Maya Choudhary, Madras High Court on 24th October 2025, A Nos.3226 & 3227, 4221 to 4236 of 2025 in OA Nos.176 to 179 of 2025 in C.S(COMM DIV) No.56 of 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/134271829/.
Authored by Ms. Benita Alphonsa Basil and Reviewed by Ms. Ashwini Arun
