Madras High Court Allows Udaipur Salon To Use 'Bounce', Rejects South Indian Chain's Appeal
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Spalon India Private Limited, operator of the “BOUNCE” salon chain in South India, against an order vacating the interim injunction earlier granted in its favour over the use of the word “Bounce” by an Udaipur-based salon, “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio.”A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni...
The Madras High Court has dismissed appeals filed by Spalon India Private Limited, operator of the “BOUNCE” salon chain in South India, against an order vacating the interim injunction earlier granted in its favour over the use of the word “Bounce” by an Udaipur-based salon, “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio.”
A Division Bench of Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, on November 21, 2025, upheld the Single Judge's finding that the rival marks and logos were sufficiently distinct and that the injunction could not be continued.
On examining the competing marks, the Single Judge noted significant visual differences, Spalon India uses only the word “BOUNCE,” whereas the Udaipur salon uses the expression “Bounce Salon & Makeover Studio” along with a logo featuring a scissor graphic, eight stars in a semi-circle, and a circular seal carrying the full business name. The court also recorded that Spalon India operates in Chennai, Bengaluru and Hyderabad, while the Udaipur salon functions solely within Udaipur, Rajasthan.
Spalon India argued in appeal that the Single Judge had overlooked its ownership of the word mark “Bounce.” The Udaipur salon countered that it has no plans to expand beyond Udaipur and that Spalon India has no presence in Rajasthan.
After hearing the parties, the Division Bench agreed with the Udaipur salon's submissions and held that the Single Judge's reasoning was consistent with judicial precedents. The Bench observed that Spalon India had not shown any ground for interference and remarked that the appeals appeared to have been filed merely to protract and frustrate the trial before the Single Judge.
The appeals were accordingly dismissed.
Case Title: Spalon India Private Limited v. Maya Choudhary
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 442
Case Number: O.S.A.(CAD) Nos.127 to 132 of 2025
For Appellant: Advocate Satish Kumar for Advocate MS Bharath
For Respondent: Advocate Srinath Sridevan for Advocate A Jayesh Kumar Daga