E-Paper
Salon chain restricted from using name over trademark infringement
A salon chain was restricted by a local court from using the name “Apple Unisex Salon” pending a trademark infringement suit filed against them
A salon chain was restricted by a local court from using the name “Apple Unisex Salon” pending a trademark infringement suit filed against them.
The order was passed by judge Ashwini Lokhande on March 10 and a copy of the order was made available on Monday. However, the court has granted a four-week stay on the order in order for the defendant to approach the Bombay High Court.
“Defendants, their men, agents, servants, dealers, distributors, assigns or any of them are hereby restrained from making unlawful use of the trade-mark of the plaintiff Apple Unisex Salon and/or making any or adopting or rearranging or re-alerting the words thereof in any manner for their profit and gain till disposal of the suit,” read the order.
The two salon owners have been involved in a tiff about the name since the inception of the defendant’s chain, according to the complainant. The complainants claim to have registered a police complaint, sent a legal notice and then filed a civil suit in the court.
“We started our salons in 2006, we applied for registration and got it in 2008. The defendant started using our mark in 2016. First, we filed a police complaint, and sent them a legal notice, they did not respond. So, we filed a civil suit in January 2019. On March 10, the court ordered them to not use the name. They applied for a stay on it and the court has granted them a stay of four weeks. We got the certified copy of the order day before yesterday (Monday),” said Akshay Borude of Apple unisex Salon.
The Apple Unisex Salon business has two outlets in Pune and is registered in the name of Kavita Borude, mother of Akshay Borude.
When asked for a statement from the defendant salon chain, their representative cited “ethical issues.”
Advocate Sagar Bhirange refused to comment on the issue.
“It will be unethical of me to comment without my client,” he said.
While he was not asked to make a personal comment, he refused to forward a request for a comment to the defendant while repeatedly citing “ethical issues”.
The salon chain that was started later on has a bigger operation in the city, according to the applicant.
“We have no relation with them. We do not know them. They tried to get registered, but the government has not processed their application as we had already registered it. They have sold the franchise to almost 45 people. They have earned almost ₹9-10 crore using our name,” said Borude.
