The subject matter of the dispute in the present case is the use of the trademark associated with the brand “GLOBE” in relation to padlocks and other hardware equipment. The first plaintiff, Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., is a Chinese manufacturer. It asserted that its “GLOBE” trademark was registered and that it enjoyed reputation and goodwill in India and other markets. The defendant was alleged to have adopted a mark that was phonetically and visually similar. The suit also included claims concerning copyright in artistic work, trade dress and colour combination.
This case is particularly significant because the Defendant relied on a registration for a device representing the same trade name “GLOBE” in Tamil, which raised the question of traders representing a marks in a vernacular script or language, which is increasing prevalant India’s multilingual market.
The Court held that the change of language did not, at the prima facie stage, remove the effect of phonetic and visual similarity.
BRIEF FACTS AND HISTORY
It was asserted by the plaintiffs that the first Plaintiff manufactured locks having a trademark which had built a reputation and goodwill in India as well as other countries. They contended that the defendant had endorsed a mark/device which was visually and in terms of pronunciation similar to their trademark and was potentially capable of causing confusion to the consumers.
The original application was filed pursuing to obtain an ad-interim injunction ceasing the defendant, his officers, staff, agents, servants, successors, assigns and representatives, as well as other persons acting through him, from selling products by incorporating marks identical or strikingly similar to the plaintiffs’ “GLOBE” trademark and related marks in Class 06. The relief was sought in respect of padlocks and other hardware equipment.
The application dealt with the Plaintiffs’ copyright claim. The plaintiffs sought an ad-interim injunction prohibiting the defendant from violating their copyright through artistic work, trade dress and colour combination which, according to them, deceptively similar to their products.
On 28 November 2025, the Court granted an ex parte injunction. A. Nos. 446 and 447 of 2026 were subsequently filed to vacate that order, and the two applications were heard together as a common order. An earlier procedural challenge also formed part of the background. On 23 March 2026, in A. No. 914 of 2026, the defendant sought rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11[d] of the Code of Civil Procedure, questioning the authority of the person who had instituted the suit on behalf of the Chinese plaintiff. The Court held that any defect in the letter of authorisation was curable or ratifiable and dismissed the application.
DECISION AND REASONING
A. UNRESOLVED PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS WERE LEFT FOR TRIAL
The Court did not finally determine the allegations concerning maintainability or fabrication. It held that those questions could be concluded only after trial and after hearing the parties on the evidence. This is an important limitation on the order: it does not amount to a final rejection of those objections; it simply declines to allow them to displace the interim relief on the material then before the Court.
The Court also noted that summons had been served on 11 December 2025, that the application for rejection of the plaint had been dismissed on 23 March 2026, and that no written statement had been filed within the stipulated time under the Commercial Courts Act. These procedural circumstances were recorded as part of the case history.
B. REGISTRATION DID NOT CONCLUSIVELY DEFEAT THE PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM
The Court acknowledged that registration gives a proprietor a right to use a trademark. It also noted, however, that the statute permits a mark to be rectified or removed from the Register. Because opposition and rectification proceedings relating to the defendant’s mark were pending before the Registry, the Court did not treat the registration as sufficient reason to vacate the injunction.
This reflects the statutory distinction between registered rights, prior-use rights and validity proceedings. Section 28 gives effect to registration, while Section 34 separately protects qualifying prior users and Section 57 provides a statutory route to challenge a registration. The order therefore illustrates that the existence of a registration may support a party’s position without automatically resolving a competing claim of earlier use.
C. PRIMA FACIE PRIOR USE, REPUTATION AND GOODWILL FAVOURED THE PLAINTIFFS
The Court recorded that the plaintiffs had placed material showing use of the allegedly infringed mark and prior use of that mark. The defendant also claimed prior use. The Court nevertheless found it significant that the defendant’s 2023 trademark application described the mark as “proposed to use”. That filing weakened the defendant’s asserted chronology at the interlocutory stage.
The Court found that the plaintiffs had placed material showing use of the allegedly infringed trademark and concluded prima facie that the plaintiffs were the prior users. The Court further found that the trademark had acquired reputation and goodwill in the market.
D. THE VERNACULAR FORM DID NOT NEUTRALISE DECEPTIVE SIMILARITY
The Court specifically addressed the defendant’s use of a phonetically and visually similar trademark/device in a vernacular language. It held that the fact that the defendant’s mark was presented in a vernacular language did not entitle him to infringe the plaintiffs’ trademark where the plaintiffs had prima facie established prior use, reputation and goodwill.
The Court found that the plaintiffs had placed material showing use of the allegedly infringed trademark and concluded prima facie that the plaintiffs were the prior users. The Court further found that the trademark had acquired reputation and goodwill in the market.
The Court held that the Plaintiffs were prior users whose mark had reputation and goodwill, and that the Defendants’ attempt to use a phonetically and visually similar trademark/device “however, in a vernacular language” did not entitle them to infringe the plaintiffs’ established mark.
The legal significance is not that every translation or transliteration automatically infringes. The Court’s conclusion rests on the combination of factors before it: prior use, reputation and goodwill; phonetic and visual similarity; the nature of the goods; and the evidentiary difficulty created by the defendant’s own 2023 application. The language difference could not, on these facts, operate as an independent defence.
This is consistent with the broader approach to deceptive similarity reflected in Parle Products [P] Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore, where the Supreme Court emphasised that the comparison should focus on the overall impression and essential features rather than minor distinctions identified through a mechanical side-by-side comparison.
PRACTICALLY:
After considering all the submissions, the Court concluded that the materials placed before it did not disclose substantial reasons for vacating the earlier order. The defendant’s registration, the allegations concerning fabrication, and the maintainability objections did not overcome the prima facie case established by the plaintiffs. The Court therefore maintained the interim protection. Importantly, the order did not finally adjudicate the disputed allegations of fabrication or every question concerning maintainability; those matters were left to be determined in the appropriate proceedings.
The effect of the order was that the interim protection in favour of the plaintiffs continued, while disputed matters such as the allegations of fabrication and the broader maintainability objections remained matters for appropriate adjudication.
For businesses relying on a vernacular registration, the case highlights the importance of a consistent documentary history of adoption and use. A later registration may not be enough to resist interim relief when the plaintiff demonstrates earlier use and the validity or priority of the registration is itself under challenge. Defences based on genericness, independent adoption, prior use, document authenticity or maintainability remain available, but they require evidence and must be assessed within the correct procedural framework.
Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. is a significant recent Madras High Court order for trademark litigation in India’s multilingual market. Its principal contribution is practical: a mark does not become legally unrelated to an established trademark merely because it is represented in a vernacular script or language. Where phonetic and visual similarity exists, and the plaintiff establishes prior use, reputation and goodwill, the language difference will not, by itself, defeat interim protection.
