No Monopoly Over ‘Bounce’: Madras High Court Backs Udaipur Salon, Dismisses Chain’s Appeal

No Monopoly Over ‘Bounce’: Madras High Court Backs Udaipur Salon, Dismisses Chain’s Appeal

Introduction

The Madras High Court has declined to interfere with an order permitting an Udaipur-based salon to continue using the name “Bounce,” rejecting trademark infringement claims raised by a South India–based salon chain operating under the same word mark. The Court held that the competing marks, logos and business contexts were sufficiently distinct to negate any likelihood of consumer confusion.

Factual Background

Spalon India Private Limited operates a chain of salons in South India under the mark “BOUNCE.” It claimed rights over the word mark and sought to restrain an Udaipur-based entity, “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio,” from using the word “Bounce” in its trade name and branding.

The Udaipur salon uses the expression “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” along with a composite logo featuring a scissor device, eight stars arranged in a semi-circle, and a circular seal carrying its full business name. Its operations are confined exclusively to Udaipur, Rajasthan.

Procedural Background

Spalon India had initially secured an interim injunction restraining the Udaipur salon from using the impugned mark. This injunction was later vacated by a Single Judge of the Madras High Court, who found that the rival marks and logos were visually and conceptually distinct.

Aggrieved by the vacation of the injunction, Spalon India preferred intra-court appeals before a Division Bench of the High Court.

Issues

1. Whether the use of the word “Bounce” by the Udaipur-based salon amounted to trademark infringement or passing off of Spalon India’s “BOUNCE” mark.

2. Whether the interim injunction in favour of Spalon India ought to have been continued.

Contentions of the Parties

Spalon India contended that it was the registered proprietor of the word mark “BOUNCE” and that the Single Judge failed to accord due weight to its statutory rights. It argued that continued use of the word “Bounce” by the Udaipur salon was likely to cause confusion and dilute its brand identity.

The Udaipur salon submitted that its branding was materially different, both visually and conceptually, and that its business was geographically restricted to Udaipur. It also pointed out that Spalon India had no presence in Rajasthan and that there was no real likelihood of overlap in clientele.

Reasoning and Analysis

The Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar examined the rival marks as a whole and noted significant visual and structural differences between them. It observed that Spalon India uses the standalone word “BOUNCE,” whereas the respondent employs a longer composite expression accompanied by distinct graphical elements, including scissors, stars and a circular emblem.

The Court also took note of the geographical separation between the parties’ operations. While Spalon India operates in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, the respondent salon functions solely in Udaipur with no plans for expansion.

The Bench agreed with the Single Judge that, when assessed from the perspective of an average consumer, the differences in branding, presentation and market presence were sufficient to rule out any likelihood of confusion. It further observed that Spalon India had failed to demonstrate any perversity or legal infirmity in the Single Judge’s reasoning warranting appellate interference.

The Court also remarked that the appeals appeared to have been filed primarily to delay and frustrate the progress of the suit before the Single Judge.

Decision

The Division Bench dismissed the appeals and upheld the order vacating the interim injunction. As a result, the Udaipur-based “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” is entitled to continue using its name and logo. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the interim stage and would not prejudice the final adjudication of the suit.

In this case the appellant was represented by Mr.Satish Kumar, Advocate. Meanwhile the respondent was represented by Mr.Srinath Sridevan, Advocate.