Sammaan Finserv Limited Vs. Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited

Case Title:Sammaan Finserv Limited & Sammaan Capital Limited v. Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited & Ors.

Date of Order:18 February 2025

Case No.: (FAO(OS) (COMM) 26/2025)

Court:High Court of Delhi at New Delhi

Judges:Hon'ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Digpaul

Facts of the Case:

A Single Judge had previously granted an injunction restraining Sammaan Finserv Limited and Sammaan Capital Limited from using, advertising, or displaying marks that are identical or deceptively similar to the respondent Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited’s registered “SVAMAAN” marks. The dispute centers on whether the appellants’ adoption of the “SAMMAAN” marks infringes on the respondent’s rights. The appellants contend that the marks are distinct—citing differences in pronunciation, visual appearance, and the sophistication of their consumer base—while the respondent argues that the similarity between “SAMMAAN” and “SVAMAAN” is likely to mislead consumers in the financial services sector.

Issues Raised:

1. Whether the “SAMMAAN” marks are deceptively similar to the respondent’s “SVAMAAN” marks.

2. Whether there exists a likelihood of consumer confusion in the financial loan market.

3. Whether the interim injunction granted by the Single Judge should continue to operate pending the final disposal of the appeals.

Reasoning and Analysis:

Trademark Similarity and Consumer Perception:

The Court reviewed multiple tests—including phonetic analysis (the Pianotist test) and assessments of visual and conceptual similarity—to determine whether the marks could deceive the average consumer. Although the appellants argued that differences such as “SVA” versus “SAM” distinguish the marks, the Court noted that in the context of financial services, where consumers may not scrutinize subtle differences, confusion remains a distinct possibility.

Balance of Convenience:

Both parties presented arguments regarding the potential irreparable harm. The appellants highlighted their long-term use of the marks and the severe business impact of an injunction. In contrast, the respondent underscored its prior registration and longstanding reputation associated with the “SVAMAAN” marks. The Court emphasized that while serious questions of merit exist, the balance of convenience favours maintaining the status quo until a final decision is reached.

Procedural Considerations:

Given that the substantive issues would be addressed on final disposal, the Court focused on the immediate need to preserve the existing state of affairs. The interim order was aimed solely at preventing any premature alteration of the market position that could lead to irreversible harm.

Decision of the Judge (Interim Order):

The Court disposed of the interim applications and The status quo to remain in force until the appeals are finally disposed of.