The case Svamaan Financial Services Pvt. Ltd. vs. Sammaan Capital Ltd. revolves around a trademark dispute regarding the alleged deceptive similarity between the plaintiff's registered trademark “SVAMAAN” and the defendant’s newly adopted corporate name “SAMMAAN”. The plaintiff, Svamaan Financial Services, is a Non-Banking Finance Company - Microfinance Institution (NBFC-MFI) operating since 2017, offering microfinance loans and other financial services. The defendants, previously operating under the Indiabulls brand, rebranded their financial entities under the Sammaan name in 2024. The plaintiff claimed that the defendants' use of the “SAMMAAN” mark in financial services infringes upon its established trademark, leading to market confusion. The defendants argued that Sammaan is a common Hindi word meaning "respect" and that their business model differs significantly from the plaintiff’s.
The key legal issue was whether the defendant’s adoption of the “SAMMAAN” name constituted trademark infringement and passing off under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The plaintiff contended that "SVAMAAN" and "SAMMAAN" were phonetically, visually, and conceptually similar, making them likely to mislead consumers. The defendant countered that regulatory approvals from the RBI and RoC validated its use of "Sammaan", and that its clientele, being financially literate, would not be confused between the two brands.
The court analyzed several judicial precedents regarding deceptive similarity, including Corn Products Refining Co. v. Shangrila Food Products Ltd. (which held that phonetic similarity could lead to confusion), Ruston & Hornsby Ltd. v. Zamindara Engineering Co. (which ruled that minor spelling changes do not eliminate deceptive similarity), and Hindustan Pencils v. India Stationery Products (which emphasized that delay in filing suit does not negate a strong infringement claim). The defendants relied on PhonePe vs. BharatPe and Living Media India vs. Alpha Dealcom, arguing that common Hindi words cannot be monopolized; however, the court distinguished these cases by noting that both parties in the present case operate in the same financial domain, increasing the likelihood of confusion.
The Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the competing marks were structurally, phonetically, and conceptually similar, with only minor spelling differences that did not negate the possibility of consumer confusion. The court rejected the defendant's reliance on regulatory approvals, stating that trademark disputes fall under civil jurisdiction, not regulatory bodies like the RBI or RoC. It also found that the defendant had prior knowledge of the plaintiff's mark and proceeded with its rebranding despite receiving a cease-and-desist notice, indicating bad faith adoption. The court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “SAMMAAN” in their corporate names, advertisements, branding, or domain names, thereby preventing potential consumer confusion.
The judgment reinforced that minor spelling differences do not eliminate trademark infringement, regulatory approvals do not determine trademark validity, and prior use and goodwill are crucial factors in infringement cases. The ruling upholds the importance of protecting well-established trademarks from deceptive similarities that can mislead consumers.
Case Title: Svamaan Financial Services Vs Samman Capital Services
Date of Order: 10th February 2025
Case No.: CS(COMM) 871/2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:794
Court: Delhi High Court
Judge: Hon’ble Justice Amit Bansal
No comments:
Post a Comment