Using visually similar vernacular versions of registered trademark is infringement: Madras High Court

Using a vernacular version of a registered trademark may still amount to infringement if it is phonetically and visually similar to the original mark, the Madras High Court has held [Vikas Vs Shanghai Huanqiu].

Justice K Kumaresh Babu made the observation while restraining Vikas Mandoth from using the Tamil version of the “GLOBE” trademark on padlocks.

“The defendants attempt to use a phonetically and visually similar trademark/ device however, in a vernacular language would not entitle him to infringe the trademark of the plaintiff which had been established to have a good reputation and good will,” the Court said in an order passed on September 7.

The suit was filed by Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Limited and Valaram, the proprietor of Prince Impex (plaintiffs).

The plaintiffs said Shanghai Huanqiu manufactures locks under the GLOBE trademark and had built substantial reputation and goodwill in India and other countries.

They alleged that Mandoth was selling padlocks bearing the word “Globe” in Tamil. According to them, the Tamil mark was phonetically and visually similar to their mark and was likely to confuse customers.

They also alleged that Mandoth had copied the artistic work, colour combination, trade dress and overall appearance of their padlocks.

On November 28, 2025, the High Court passed an ex parte injunction restraining Mandoth from using the disputed mark. He then filed applications seeking to vacate the injunction.

Mandoth argued that his Tamil mark had been developed independently after considering the nature and function of the product. He added that the mark was registered and, therefore, he could not be prevented from using it.

He also claimed that he was a prior user of the Tamil mark.

However, the Court noted that Mandoth’s trademark application, filed in 2023, stated that the mark was “proposed to be used”. The plaintiffs, meanwhile, had placed documents on record to support their claim of prior use.

“This Court prima facie concludes that the plaintiff had been the prior user of the trade mark which commends a good reputation and good will in the market,” the Court said.

Justice Babu added that registration gave a proprietor the right to use a trademark. However, the law also permitted another party to seek its removal or rectification. Opposition and rectification proceedings against Mandoth’s mark were already pending before the Trade Marks Registry, the judge noted.

The Court said these questions could be decided only after evidence was recorded during the trial.

Hence, it dismissed Mandoth’s applications and made the earlier injunction absolute. It also allowed the plaintiffs’ application concerning copyright in the artistic work, colour combination and trade dress of the padlocks.

The plaintiffs were represented by Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy.

Mandoth was represented by advocate Jayesh Kumar Daga

[Read Judgment]