The Madras High Court has recently lifted an interim injunction that had previously restrained an Udaipur-based salon from using the name “Bounce,” noting that the term is common in the beauty and haircare industry. In a ruling delivered on October 25, A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, vacated the injunction that had been granted in favor of Spalon India Pvt. Ltd., the operator...
The Madras High Court has recently lifted an interim injunction that had previously restrained an Udaipur-based salon from using the name “Bounce,” noting that the term is common in the beauty and haircare industry.
In a ruling delivered on October 25, A Single Bench of Justice N. Senthilkumar, vacated the injunction that had been granted in favor of Spalon India Pvt. Ltd., the operator of the well-known “Bounce” salon chain in South India.
As per Spalon India, it has been in the salon business since the 1980s and owns several brands, including Kanya, Oryza, and Bounce. The company registered the “Bounce” trademark in 2013 and claimed that the Udaipur salon, operating as “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio,” had adopted an identical name and logo, warranting legal restraint.
In March 2025, the Court had granted an interim injunction in Spalon's favour, restraining the Udaipur salon from using the “Bounce” mark. However, the Udaipur salon later applied to have the order set aside.
The Udaipur salon argued that it serves only the local Udaipur market and has distinct branding. Its logo features a scissor graphic and a circular seal with the words “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio.” The salon further contended that “'Bounce' is a generic word in the haircare industry which describes volume and vitality in hair,” and that no company can claim exclusive ownership over such a common term.
Spalon India countered that its trademark registration covers all of India and that the same name, even in another city, could confuse customers and hinder its national expansion.
After reviewing the evidence, the Court concluded that the marks were not deceptively similar and had clear visual differences.
"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", the court observed.
The Court also referred to Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, explaining that registration of a composite mark grants exclusive rights over the mark as a whole and not over individual generic words within it.
The Court held that “Bounce” is a non-distinctive, descriptive word and the Udaipur salon's use of “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” taken together could not be considered infringement.
The Court added that whether Spalon India holds exclusive rights over “Bounce” would be determined in a full trial but that continuing the injunction until then would cause irreparable harm to the Udaipur salon.
Consequently, the Court vacated the interim injunction, allowing the Udaipur salon to continue operating under its current name.
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 396
Case No : C.S(COMM DIV) No.56 of 2025
For Applicant: Advocate Bharath
For Respondent: Advocate A Jayesh Kumar Daga, Adv.