Introduction
This case deals with a trademark dispute between Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited and the Sammaan-formative companies (formerly known as INDIABULLS). Svamaan filed for a temporary injunction in the Delhi High Court on the ground that the Sammaan-formative companies were infringing its trademark. The Court granted Svamaan’s request, agreeing that Sammaan’s actions were infringing on Svamaan’s trademark rights.
Parties
- Plaintiff: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
- Defendants: Sammaan Capital Limited (Defendant No.1), Sammaan Finserve Limited (Defendant No. 2), Sammaan Collection Agency Limited (Defendant No. 3) and Sammaan Advisory Services Limited (Defendant No.4)
Facts of the Case
Svamaan incorporated in 2017 is an RBI registered Non-Banking Finance Company –Micro Finance Institution which commenced its operations in January 2019. The mark ‘SVAMAAN’ along with a device mark for the same, were adopted in relation to financial services in 2017 and registered in various classes including class 36.
The Defendants, part of the INDIABULLS Group were incorporated as early as in 2005. In 2024, Defendant no.1 transformed from a promoter-led and promoter-driven lender (housing finance company) to a mortgage-focused non-banking financial company. Following this transformation, the Defendants rebranded themselves with SAMMAAN formative corporate names.
In November 2023, Svamaan had issued a Cease-and-Desist notice when it learned that Defendant no.1 was intending to change its name and identity to ‘SAMMAAN CAPITAL’. In its interim response, the Defendant no.1 stated that it was merely changing its corporate name to ‘SAMMAAN CAPITAL’. However, trademark applications for the word mark, ‘SAMMAAN CAPITAL’ and the device marks, ‘’SAMMAAN, SAMMAAN FINANCE‘’ and “SAMMAAN FINSERVE” were filed in class 36 between February and May 2024.
Svamaan sent mails to the Registrar of Companies and RBI in November 2023 stating that the mark, ‘SAMMAAN CAPITAL’ was deceptively similar to its trademarks. However, Defendants 1 and 2 were permitted to change their names. Consequently, Svamaan filed, rectification applications with the MCA u/s 16(1)(b) of Companies Act 2013 which are currently pending adjudication with the MCA. Aggrieved by the Defendants’ adoption of the mark, this suit was filed.
Issues and Analysis:
- Criminal Complaint: The Defendants sought dismissal of the suit on the ground that Svamaan had filed forged and fabricated documents, i.e., the trademark registration numbers were incorrect. During the course of the trial, it was clarified that the alleged error was technical and thereby, the criminal complaint was dismissed.
- Similarity of Marks: The Court found that the dominant element of the marks, ‘SVAMAAN’ and ‘SAMMAAN’ were visually, phonetically, and conceptually similar, as both were derived from Hindi words meaning “respect.” The Court ruled that this similarity could cause confusion among consumers.
- Nature of Adoption: Despite Svamaan’s notice, the Defendants continued using ‘SVAMAAN’ leading the Court to conclude that their adoption of the marks was not bona fide.
- Identical Services: Both parties were in the business of financial services, with overlapping services like loans, insurance, and financial affairs. The Court found that these services were identical, strengthening Svamaan’s case for infringement.
- Descriptive/ Publici Juris/ Common to Trade: The Court rejected the argument that ‘SVAMAAN’ and ‘SAMMAAN’ were common terms in the finance industry. It was noted that Svamaan’s adoption of the ‘SVAMAAN’ marks since 2017 in relation to financial services was arbitrary and distinctive to Svamaan. The Defendant failed to establish that the term was commonly used by businesses granting loans.
- Likelihood of confusion: The Court ruled that consumers, who were illiterate, semi-literate or non-Hindi speaking, would find the competing marks ‘SVAMAAN’ and ‘SAMMAAN’ very similar or nearly identical and would therefore get confused between the two. The test to be established in cases of infringement and passing off is of likelihood of confusion, and not actual confusion. Hence, the Court stated that Svamaan made out a prima facie case for infringement in terms of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
- Delays and Laches: The Court observed that Svamaan took prompt actions and measures to prevent the Defendants from using the SAMMAAN-formative corporate names and trademarks, including issuance of a cease-and-desist notice in November 2023. Hence, the Court dismissed the Defendants’ averment regarding delay of instituting the suit only in October 2024.
- Regulatory approvals obtained by the Defendants: The Court ruled that the mandate of determining infringement of trademarks is vested in a civil court. It therefore, cannot be argued that any decision taken by the RBI and RoC with regard to identity/ similarity between two marks would be binding on a civil court.
Conclusion
The Court found that Svamaan had made a prima facie case of trademark infringement, as the Defendants’ marks that were deceptively similar and used for identical services was likely to cause confusion among the public. Hence, the Court ruled in favor of Svamaan, granting an interim injunction by restraining the Defendants from using any mark or name similar to ‘SVAMAAN’, until the final decision on the case.
Citation: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. (I.A. 41270/2024, I.A. 43249/2024 and CRL. M.A. 32198/2024 IN CS(COMM) 871/2024), Delhi High Court on 10th February 2025. Available at: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/111910708/
Authored by Benita Alphonsa Basil, Trademark Team
Disclaimer
The case note/s in this blog post have been written by IP Attorneys at BananaIP Counsels based on their review and understanding of the Judgments. It may be noted that other IP attorneys and experts in the field may have different opinions about the cases or arrive at different conclusions therefrom. It is advisable to read the Judgments before making any decisions based on the case notes.
If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak with an IP expert/attorney, please reach us at: contact@bananaip.com or 91-80-26860414/24/34.
