Spalon India Private Limited v. Mr Suresh Sole Proprietor Of Bounce

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

DATED: 16.02.2026

CORAM:

THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY Spalon India Private Limited represented by its Authorised Signatory Ms.Sneh Asit Koticha, 2nd Floor, Saba House, No.209/A, St. Mary's Road, Alwarpet, Chennai - 600 018.

... Applicant in both applications vs.

Mr.Suresh Sole Proprietor of Bounce, The Family Saloon, D.No.10-53-265/5, Near Pydah Degree College, Opp. Bombay Food Zone, Raghavendraswamy Temple Down Road, Ram Nagar - 530 002, Visakhapatnam.

... Respondent in both applications For Applicant : Mr.M.S.Bharath in both applications 1/4

COMMON ORDER At the hearing on 28.01.2026, the tracking report enclosed with affidavit of service dated 09.01.2026 was taken note of and it was recorded that the defendant had refused to receive notice in the interim applications. After directing that the name of the respondent be printed in the cause list for the hearing on 05.01.2026, the applicant/plaintiff was heard on 05.01.2026. On that date, an order of interim injunction was granted until the next date of hearing, and the plaintiff was permitted to communicate the order to the defendant.

2. Pursuant thereto, the plaintiff has filed affidavit of service dated 09.01.2026 enclosing the tracking report evidencing refusal by the defendant to receive notice.

3. In these circumstances, the matter is proceeded with in the absence of the defendant. At the hearing on 05.01.2026, it was recorded in the relevant paragraphs as under: 2/4

'4. The plaintiff has placed on record evidence that it is the prior user of the mark BOUNCE from 12.02.2004. The defendant's marks contain the word BOUNCE. Both the plaintiff and the defendant are engaged in the provision of identical services.

5. Considering the aforesaid, it is likely that the usage of the impugned marks would cause confusion or deception to the relevant section of the public. Unless restrained at this juncture, it is also likely that irreparable hardship would be caused to the plaintiff. Therefore, the order of interim injunction as prayed for in these two applications is granted until the next date of hearing.'

4. For reasons set out in the above extracted paragraphs, the orders of interim injunction are made absolute and these applications are allowed.

16.02.2026 mmi 3/4

SENTHILKUMAR RAMAMOORTHY,J.

mmi 16.02.2026 4/4