Arctic
Invent
Case Registry
Dashboard
Case Explorer
Back to Explorer
Update Case Entry
Manually curate individual case documents inside the PostgreSQL engine.
Case Lawsuit Title
*
Case / Trial ID Number
Jurisdiction Code
*
us
in
upc
eu
Category
*
Patent
Trademark
Copyright
Design
Filing Date
Decision Verdict Date
Court / Tribunal
Bench / Panel Judges
Petitioner / Claimant (Plaintiff)
Spalon India Private Limited
Respondent / Defendant
Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon
Dispute Summary
The plaintiff, Spalon India Private Limited, filed a suit against the defendant, Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon, for alleged infringement of its registered trademark 'BOUNCE'. The parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise, which was accepted by the court. The defendant agreed to a decree in terms of the remedies claimed by the plaintiff and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach.
Outcome / Ruling
settled
Verdict Document PDF URL
Full text judgment
[Cites 8 , Cited by 0 ] Madras High Court Spalon India Private Limited vs Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading As B Bounce Salon on 27 April, 2026 Author: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy Bench: Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 27.04.2026 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 and O.A. Nos. 952 to 955 of 2025 and A. No.4819 of 2025 Spalon India Private Limited Represented by its Authorized Representative Ms Sneh Koticha 2nd Floor Saba House No 209 A St Mary s Road Alwarpet Chennai 600018 ..Plaintiff Vs Mrs Pooja Gupta Trading as, B BOUNCE Salon, D-147, Near Geeta Bhawan, Near HDFC Bank, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-110007 ..Defendant Plaint filed under Order VII Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Order IV Rule 1 of Original Side Rules of The Madras High Court, Section 2(1)(C)(xvii) read with Section 7 of The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and Sections 27 , 28 , 29 , 134 and 135 of The Trade Marks Act, 1999 praying to grant a judgment and decree on the following terms: a) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents, and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, any products, offering service and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, online or offline, dealing with __________ Page1 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 any service in the name of “B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON which is identical similar to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark BOUNCE amounting to an infringement of the plaintiff’s registered trademarks bearing the application nos.1278997 under class 42, 2371476 under class 44 2371477 under class 26, 2371478 under class 11, 2371479 under class 21, 2375804 under class 41, 2375805 under class 44, 3381492 under class 44, 3381493 under class 44 and 5730239 under class 41 in any manner whatsoever; b) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from manufacturing, selling, distributing, exporting, advertising, offering for sale, and in any other manner, directly or indirectly, dealing with any products, services in the name of B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON or any mark which is identical/similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks BOUNCE and such other marks and passing off the goods/services of the defendant as and for those of the plaintiff in any manner whatsoever; c) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, their employees, officers, servants, agents and all others acting for and on their behalf from using mark B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON __________ Page2 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 or any mark which is deceptively similar and or identical to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark “BOUNCE” in any of the websites, domain names, social media platforms, email address, mobile application and other intermediaries in any language in any manner whatsoever; d) A permanent injunction restraining the Defendant, their partners, directors, proprietors, subsidiaries, affiliates, franchisees, officers, servants, agents, distributors, stockists, representatives, licensees and anyone acting for or on their behalf directly or indirectly, as the case may be from performing any actions, especially using the trademarks “B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON or any mark which is deceptively similar and or identical to the Plaintiff’s trademark BOUNCE amounting to unfair competition, dilution of the goodwill and reputation of the Plaintiff’s trademark or doing any other thing which will lead to dilution of Plaintiff’s Intellectual Properties; e) The Defendants be ordered to pay the Plaintiff a sum of lNR 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) as damages for having committed infringement of the Plaintiff’s registered trademark and passing off in respect of the Plaintiff’s trademark BOUNCE and its formative marks; f) A preliminary decree be passed in favour of the Plaintiff directing the Defendant to render true and proper accounts of the profits arising out of the amount of sales generated by the defendant in respect of their __________ Page3 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 alleged activities bearing the mark “B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON or any mark which is deceptively similar and or identical to the Plaintiff’s registered trademark "BOUNCE” in any manner whatsoever; g) To grant order of delivery up of any brochures/ printed material and/or any material bearing “B BOUNCE SALON, B BOUNCE, B BOUNCE UNISEX SALON which infringes Plaintiff’s registered trademark BOUNCE; h) Costs of such other relief as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit, in the circumstances of the case, in the interests of justice and equity. For Plaintiff: Mr.V.S.Krishna for Mr.M.S.Bharath For Defendant: Mr.Shoaib Fazil JUDGMENT The suit was filed for the remedies in respect of alleged infringement of trade mark and passing off. Pursuant to negotiations, parties reached a settlement and executed a memorandum of compromise dated 28.03.2026. Such memorandum of compromise has __________ Page4 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 been executed by an authorised signatory of the plaintiff and by the defendant. The respective counsel have also signed the document. 2. In such memorandum of compromise, the defendant has submitted to a decree in terms of remedies claimed in paragraph Nos.60(a), (b), (c) and (d) of the plaint. The plaintiff has agreed to give up remedies claimed in paragraph Nos.60(f) and (g) of the plaint. As regards the remedy claimed in paragraph No.60(e) of the plaint, the defendant has agreed to and paid a sum of Rs.30,000/- as costs. The parties have also provided for payment of liquidated damages of Rs.10,00,000/- in the event of breach. 3. I find no legal impediment to the issuance of decree in terms of said memorandum of compromise. 4. Therefore, the civil suit is decreed in terms of memorandum of compromise dated 28.03.2026, which shall form an integral part of such decree. Consequently, connected applications are closed. 27.04.2026 Index: Yes/No Neutral Citation: Yes/No mmi __________ Page5 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY J. mmi C.S(COMM DIV) No. 252 of 2025 27.04.2026 __________ Page6 of 6 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cancel
Update Case