1. M/s.Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd,

Xiaodong Street, Loutang Town, Jiading District, Shanghai, China.

Represented by its Authorised Representative Vikram Kumar,

Having Office at No 8 Reddy Raman Street, 4th Floor Sowcarpet, Chennai 600079, Tamil Nadu, India.

2. Mr.Valaram, Proprietor of M/s.Prince IMPEX,

No 33 Reddy Raman Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600079, Tamil Nadu, India.

...Applicant(s) in both OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025

Vs

Mr VIKAS MANDOTH, KLP Abhinandan,

F-1701, No.1, Strahans Road, Pattalam, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai-12

..Respondent(s) in both OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025

PRAYER in O.A.No.446 of 2026:-

Application filed to vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 28.11.2025 granted in O.A.No.1120 of 2025.

PRAYER in O.A.No.447 of 2026:-

Application filed to vacate the ex-parte injunction order dated 28.11.2025 granted in O.A.No.1121 of 2025.

PRAYER in OA No. 1120 of 2025:-

Original Application filed to grant an ad interim injunction restraining the Respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns, in business, representatives and any other person from passing off their goods by using impugned trade marks and and marks under the brand “GLOBE” in Class 06 which are identical as trade mark and associated marks particularly under the brand “GLOBE” of the Applicant No.1 registered in China, or any other word/ words/logo/ artistic work/ design/ device that are identical or deceptively similar to the said registered trade mark of the applicants in respect of padlocks and other hardware equipment’s and thereby restraining the respondent in any manner from passing off, pending the disposal of the main suit.

PRAYER in OA No. 1121 of 2025: - Original Application filed to grant an ad- interim injunction restraining the Respondent, all his principal officers, staff, men, agent, servants, successors, assigns, in business, representatives and any other person from infringing the copyright of the applicants by using the artistic work, trade dress and colour combination, which are identical and deceptively similar to that of the applicants’ artistic works, colour combination and trade dress; or any other logo/ artistic work/ design/ device/ trade dress that are identical or deceptively similar to the said copyright of the applicants, pending disposal of the main suit.

In A.Nos.446 & 447 of 2026

For Applicant(s): Mr.Jayesh Kumar Daga

For Respondent(s): Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy for RR1 & 2

COMMON ORDER

These instant applications have been filed to vacate the ex-parte injunction granted by this Court and hence, the applications where under the ex-parte order passed is also taken up together for disposal.

For clarification, the parties are referred to as per the rank in the suit.

Heard, Mr.Jayesh Kumar Daga, learned counsel for the applicant and Mr.Ramesh Ganapathy, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

Learned counsel appearing for the plaintiff would submit that the plaintiff is a manufacturer of locks bearing a trademark which has been registered and has a reputation and good-will not only in the market in India but also the market in other countries. He would submit that the defendant had also adopted a phonetically and visually similar trademark which is wholly deceptive causing confusion in the mind of the end users. He would also submit that the defendants attempt to get a registered trademark would also indicate that there has been a categorical statement of a proposal to use which contradicts the claim of the defendant in the instant application to vacate is that he had been a prior user of the trademark of the so conceived trademark which is also phonetically and visually similar to that of the plaintiff's trademark thereby infringing the trade mark of the plaintiff. He would submit that this Court while granting an ex-parte injunction was not only prima facie satisfied but had given a categorical finding that even on a simple scrutiny of the trade mark of the respective p