Court Grants Svamaan Financial Services Relief In Trademark Infringement Case
Court Grants Svamaan Financial Services Relief In Trademark Infringement Case
The Delhi High Court has granted a temporary injunction in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, a non-banking financial company (NBFC) providing microfinance loans, to prevent trademark infringement by other businesses using the 'SAMMAAN' formative name in their logos.
Justice Amit Bansal observed that the 'SAMMAAN' marks used by the defendants were strikingly similar to Svamaan Financial Services' trademark 'SVAMAAN'. The Court highlighted that both marks were phonetically and structurally similar, and conceptually aligned, as both terms denoted 'respect' in Hindi. The Court found that this created a prima facie case of trademark infringement.
The defendants, who were previously part of the INDIABULLS group, changed their corporate names to include 'SAMMAAN'. They were involved in finance-related services, such as housing loans, loans against property, and insurance. Despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice from Svamaan, the defendants continued with their rebranding efforts and applied for the registration of the mark 'SAMMAAN CAPITAL'. Svamaan filed rectification applications with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA), which were still pending.
The Court concluded that the defendants' use of the 'SAMMAAN' mark was deceptive, and the differences in their corporate names, logos, and other visual elements were not sufficient to eliminate the similarity between the marks. The Court further noted that both parties operated in similar business areas, loan services and on a pan-India basis.
The Court emphasized that there was a high likelihood of consumer confusion, especially among rural or semi-literate consumers, who might not be able to distinguish between the two similar names. Based on this, the Court granted ad-interim relief, restraining the defendants from using any mark deceptively similar to the plaintiff's 'SVAMAAN' trademark.
The Court found that the plaintiff had a prima facie case of trademark infringement, and the balance of convenience favored the plaintiff. The defendants were temporarily restrained from using the contested mark until further proceedings.
