Both Denote Respect: Delhi HC Restrains Infringement Of NBFC's 'SVAMAAN' Trademark By Identical Business Using 'SAMMAAN' Name

Justice Amit Bansal observed that the impugned 'SAMMAAN' marks were identically similar to Svamaan Financial Services (plaintiff) 'SVAMAAN' trademark and thus a prima facie case of trademark infringement was made out. In doing so the court noted that both the marks/words denoted respect and were hence similar to each other.

Comparing the two marks, the Court observed that they are phonetically and structurally very similar to each other. Referring to precedents where it was held that trademark also comprises of descriptive name and not just visual elements, the Court said:

"The defendants, therefore, cannot argue that their marks are visually dissimilar from the plaintiff's marks on account of the accompanying logo or other visual elements, when the competing marks are structurally and phonetically similar.The word 'SVAMAAN' is a Hindi word which means 'self-respect' and the word 'SAMMAAN' is also a Hindi word which means 'honour'/ 'respect'. Since both the competing marks are based on the broader theme of 'respect', they are also conceptually/ semantically similar to each other". 

The plaintiff submitted that is an RBI-registered Non-Banking Finance Company (NBFC) – Micro Finance Institution. It stated that it provides micro finance loans for up businesses, fulfilling working capital requirements, home building, education, wedding, medical emergencies, and financial products and services including insurance and credit for consumer durables.

The plaintiff stated that it was incorporated in 2017 and adopted 'SVAMAAN' mark. It submitted that in FY 2023-34, its total income was over INR 169.84 crores and that it has acquired immense goodwill and reputation across India.

The plaintiff stated the defendants are a part of the INDIABULLS group and that before July 2024, their corporate names included the word 'INDIABULLS'.

The plaintiff submitted that the defendants removed the Indiabulls name and added the word 'SAMMAAN' to their corporate logos. It is stated that he defendant no. 1 is engaged in the business of providing loans for housing, loans against property, developer loans and lease rental discounting, defendant no.2 is engaged in the business of finance and insurance and the defendant nos. 3 and 4 are also involved in identical business.

The plaintiff sent a cease and desist notice to defendant no. 1, asking it to refrain from using the word 'SAMMAAN' either as a trade mark or as a corporate name. The defendant no. 1 replied that it was merely changing its corporate name to 'SAMMAAN CAPITAL'.

Subsequently, defendant no. 1 filed applications for registration of the mark 'SAMMAN CAPITAL'. The defendant was allowed to change their corporate names to include the word 'SAMMAAN'. The plaintiff filed applications seeking rectification in the corporate names of defendants nos. 1 & 2 and the applications are pending with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA).

The Court was thus of the view due to structural, phonetic and conceptual closeness between the marks, the impugned mark is deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark and that the added matters including the words CAPITAL/ FINANCE/ FINSERVE, a different logo and other visually different elements would not make any difference.

The Court further opined that the use of the impugned mark by the defendants was not bona fide. It noted that despite notice from the plaintiff, the defendants changed their corporate names and applied for trademark registrations. It also noted that the defendants did not provide a satisfactory explanation for adopting the impugned mark despite being aware that SVAMAAN mark was being used by the plaintiff.

On the nature of services being rendered by the plaintiff and defendants, the Court noted that they are engaged in competing businesses. It noted that both the plaintiff and defendants are engaged in primary/ ancillary services of granting loans. It also noted that the difference in the size and scale of businesses of the parties would not be relevant in determining the similarity between the competing businesses. It stated that the parties have a trade connection between the parties for competing services.

On the likelihood of confusion among the consumers, the Court noted that both the parties operate on pan-India basis and that the customers who avail loan may come from any background, either rural or urban, literate or illiterate, Hindi-speaking or non-Hindi speaking. It remarked, “There is a high probability that consumers, who are illiterate, semi-literate or non-Hindi speaking, would find the competing marks 'SVAMAAN' and 'SAMMAAN' very similar or nearly identical and therefore get confused between the two. Therefore, I cannot accept the submission that the class of consumer in the financial service sector is sophisticated or is capable of differentiating between the competing marks.”

In view of the above, the Court was of the view that a prima facie case of trademark infringement was made out. It stated that balance of convenience lies with the plaintiff and that it made out a case for grant of ad-interim relief.

The Court thus temporarily restrained the defendants from directly or indirectly, adopting, using, advertising, depicting or displaying in the course of trade the impugned marks and any other marks deceptively similar to the plaintiff's mark.

Case title: Svamaan Financial Services Private Limited vs. Sammaan Capital Limited & Ors.

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 166