Introduction
This case disposed of the appeals filed by Sammaan Capital Ltd and Sammaan Finserv Ltd against the judgment dated 10/02/2025, passed by the learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court in favor of Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd (hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned Judgment”). A detailed note on the Impugned Judgment was available at: https://www.bananaip.com/svamaan-vs-sammaan-trademark-dispute-delhi-hc-ruling/.
Parties
Appellants: Sammaan Capital Limited and Sammaan Finserv Limited
Respondent: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited
Background of the Case
India Bulls Housing Finance Ltd and India Bulls Commercial Credit Ltd changed their names in 2023 to Sammaan Capital and Sammaan Finserv, respectively. Following the Impugned Judgment, the Court restrained the Appellants from using ‘SAMMAAN CAPITAL’, SAMMAAN (logo), SAMMAAN FINANCE (logo), and SAMMAAN FINSERVE (logo), deeming them deceptively similar to Svamaan’s prior registered trademarks. Aggrieved, the Appellants appealed to quash the Impugned Judgment and sought an interim stay on its operation.
The appeals were initially listed before another Bench of the Delhi High Court on 13/02/2025. However, after one member recused, the matter was transferred to the current Division Bench for a hearing on 14/02/2025. To prevent prejudice, the Court ordered the status quo to continue until the next hearing. The Appellants primarily requested that the effect of the Impugned Judgment be postponed until the appeals were finally heard.
Analysis
- Phonetic Similarity of Marks: The Court applied the Pianotist test, which involved analyzing the look and sound of the marks, the goods or services they applied to, the nature of customers, surrounding circumstances, and the after-effect of the marks’ use. It noted that these criteria required deeper analysis.
- Application of the Consumer of Average Intelligence and Imperfect Recollection Test: While both parties provided loans, the Appellants operated in the macro-finance sector, offering loans exceeding ₹40 lakhs, whereas Svamaan was a micro-financing institution, providing loans up to ₹10 lakhs. The Court observed that further consideration was necessary to determine whether consumers seeking large loans or loans in general would be confused by the marks’ usage and whether any customer segment overlap existed.
- Conceptual Similarity: The Appellants argued that ‘SAMMAAN’ was a laudatory epithet that could not be monopolized. The Court opined that it had to be further examined whether there was an infringement of Svamaan’s concept of “respect” or if “SAMMAAN” was indeed laudatory.
- Bona Fide Intention: The Appellants’ promotional material included the caption “Formerly known as Indiabulls HOME LOANS.”
The Appellants offered to continue using this caption in all advertisements and promotional materials. The Court viewed this as evidence of their bona fide intention and found support for their claim that they were not attempting to capitalize on Svamaan’s reputation. - Likelihood of Confusion: Under Section 29(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter “the Act”), for a mark to be considered “deceptively similar,” there had to be a “likelihood of confusion.” Since the mark was not identical, the onus was on Svamaan to establish that the Appellants’ marks were deceptively similar and likely to cause confusion. The Appellants argued that “SAMMAAN” was part of their corporate name. The Court noted that the extent of “SAMMAAN’s” use, from being merely part of a corporate name to its commercial use, had to be evaluated before injuncting the Appellants under the preceding sub-sections of Section 29(5) of the Act.
- Competing Prejudice: The Appellants had used “SAMMAAN” since October 2023, to Svamaan’s knowledge, and commercially since July 2024. The Court found that immediate enforcement of the Impugned Judgment was likely to prejudice the Appellants by causing significant disruption to their operations. Conversely, since there was no injunction in favor of Svamaan until the Impugned Judgment was passed, maintaining the status quo did not cause prejudice to Svamaan.
Conclusion
The Court decided as follows:
- The status quo directed on 13/02/2025 would continue until the disposal of the appeals.
- The Appellants had to include in all advertisements and promotional campaigns a note stating, “Formerly known as Indiabulls,” along with the earlier Indiabulls logo prominently visible and a disclaimer: “We have no connection with Svamaan Financial Services Pvt Ltd.” This requirement had to be implemented within four weeks from 18/02/2025, allowing reasonable time for such modifications.
- The Court scheduled the appeals for hearing and final disposal on April 21, 2025.
Citation: Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. v. Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, FAO(OS) (COMM) 26/2025 & FAO(OS) (COMM) 27/2025 (Delhi High Court, Feb. 18, 2025), available at https://indiankanoon.org/doc/186273482/.
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.
