The case of Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors. revolves around a dispute concerning trademark infringement and passing off. The plaintiff, Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited, alleged that the defendants, Sammaan Capital Limited and others, adopted deceptively similar marks to its registered trademarks, thereby causing confusion in the market. The plaintiff sought an interim injunction to restrain the defendants from using the marks “SAMMAAN,” “SAMMAAN CAPITAL,” or any other variants containing the word “SAMMAAN.”
The plaintiff, incorporated in 2017, is a Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) registered with the Reserve Bank of India (RBI). It adopted the mark “SVAMAAN” (meaning “self-respect” in Hindi) in 2017 and obtained trademark registrations for the mark in various classes, including Class 36 (financial services), with the earliest registration dating back to October 8, 2018. The plaintiff claimed extensive use of the mark since 2019, supported by invoices, loan agreements, and promotional materials. It argued that the mark had acquired significant goodwill and reputation due to its pan-India operations, with over 275 branches and a loan book of INR 968 crores as of August 2024.
The defendants, part of the Indiabulls Group, rebranded themselves in 2023-24 by replacing “Indiabulls” with “SAMMAAN” (meaning “honour” or “respect” in Hindi) in their corporate names. Defendant no.1, Sammaan Capital Limited, applied for trademark registrations for “SAMMAAN CAPITAL” and related marks in Class 36 between February and May 2024. The plaintiff, upon learning of the defendants’ intentions, issued a cease-and-desist notice on November 20, 2023, and later filed opposition with regulatory authorities. When the defendants proceeded with the rebranding, the plaintiff filed the present suit in October 2024, seeking an interim injunction.
The court framed the key issues as (1) whether the defendants’ marks were deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered trademarks, (2) whether the defendants’ adoption of the marks was bona fide, (3) whether the services offered by the parties were identical or similar, (4) whether there was a likelihood of confusion, (5) whether the plaintiff’s mark was descriptive or common to trade, (6) whether the plaintiff’s delay in filing the suit barred relief and (7) whether the regulatory approvals obtained by the defendants affected the court’s jurisdiction.
On the issue of deceptive similarity, the court held that the marks “SVAMAAN” and “SAMMAAN” were structurally, phonetically, and conceptually similar. The only difference was the replacement of the letter “V” with an additional “M,” which was insufficient to distinguish the marks. Relying on precedents like Ruston & Hornsby vs Zamindara Engineering and Corn Products Refining vs Shangrila Food Products, the court emphasised that minor differences in marks do not negate infringement if the essential features are adopted. The court also rejected the defendants’ argument that their logos and additional words like “CAPITAL” or “FINSERVE” distinguished their marks, as the dominant element “SAMMAAN” was identical in spirit to the plaintiff’s mark.
The court found the defendants’ adoption of the marks to be mala fide. The plaintiff had put the defendants on notice as early as November 2023, yet the defendants proceeded with the rebranding and sought trademark registrations. The absence of a satisfactory explanation for adopting “SAMMAAN” despite knowing of the plaintiff’s prior rights indicated dishonest intent.
Regarding the similarity of services, the court noted that both parties operated in the financial sector, offering loans and related services. While the defendants argued that their services (e.g., large mortgage-backed loans) differed from the plaintiff’s (micro-finance loans), the court held that the core business of lending was identical. Citing Corn Products and Mayo Foundation for Medical Education & Research vs Bodhisatva Charitable Trust, the court observed that trade connection and potential future expansion of services were relevant considerations.
On the likelihood of confusion, the court rejected the defendants’ contention that their customers were sophisticated and unlikely to be confused. It emphasised that financial services cater to a diverse audience, including rural and semi-literate consumers who might not discern the subtle differences between the marks. The court also held that actual proof of confusion was unnecessary; the test was the likelihood of confusion, which was evident given the marks’ similarity and overlapping services.
The court dismissed the defendants’ argument that “SVAMAAN” was a descriptive or common term. It noted that the mark was arbitrary in the context of financial services and that the defendants themselves had sought trademark protection for “SAMMAAN,” undermining their claim that the word was generic. The court also distinguished the defendants’ examples of government schemes using similar words, as these were not used in trade or commerce.
On the issue of delay, the court held that the plaintiff had acted promptly by issuing a cease-and-desist notice and filing oppositions with regulatory authorities. Relying on Midas Hygiene Industries v. Sudhir Bhatia, the court ruled that delay was not a bar to injunction in trademark infringement cases, especially where the defendant’s adoption was dishonest.
The court also clarified that regulatory approvals (e.g., from RBI or RoC) did not preclude a civil court from adjudicating trademark infringement. It cited K.G. Khosla Compressors vs Khosla Extrakting to emphasise that civil courts have independent jurisdiction to determine infringement, irrespective of administrative decisions.
Finally, the court held that the balance of convenience favoured the plaintiff. The defendants had only recently adopted the marks and could not claim acquired goodwill, whereas the plaintiff had established prior rights and reputation. The defendants’ expenditure on rebranding was undertaken at their own risk, knowing the plaintiff’s objections.
In conclusion, the court granted an interim injunction restraining the defendants from using “SAMMAAN” or any deceptively similar marks until the final adjudication of the suit. The judgment underscored the importance of protecting prior trademark rights against dishonest adoption, even in cases involving regulatory approvals or alleged differences in business scale. The court’s analysis highlighted the principles of deceptive similarity, bona fide adoption, and the likelihood of confusion in trademark disputes.