Madras High Court refuses to vacate injunction against Vikas Mandoth over GLOBE mark padlocks

Madras High Court refuses to vacate injunction against Vikas Mandoth over GLOBE mark padlocks

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu of the Madras High Court has dismissed applications to vacate an ex-parte injunction that restrained Chennai trader Vikas Mandoth from using the "GLOBE" mark on padlocks and hardware goods. The court made the interim order absolute, ruling that Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. was the prior user and had established reputation and goodwill in the market.

Trademark Battle Over 'GLOBE' Padlocks: Madras HC Refuses to Lift Injunction

The dispute arose when Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., a Chinese manufacturer, along with Valaram, proprietor of Prince IMPEX, sued Vikas Mandoth for passing off and copyright infringement. The plaintiffs claimed Mandoth adopted a phonetically and visually similar mark, causing confusion among consumers. On November 28, 2025, the court granted an ex-parte injunction against Mandoth, which he later sought to vacate through two applications.

Mandoth argued that he independently conceived the trade name, had obtained a Tamil device registration for "Globe," and that the plaintiffs' suit was not maintainable under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. He also alleged that documents produced by the plaintiffs were fabricated and that the mark "Globe" was generic.

Prior User Status Prevails: Court Rejects Defendant's 'Proposed to Use' Argument

The court found that Mandoth's own trademark application, filed in 2023, stated that he "proposed to use" the mark—undermining his claim of being a prior user. Justice Babu noted that the plaintiffs had placed materials demonstrating their prior use and that the defendant's attempt to use a phonetically and visually similar mark in a vernacular language did not entitle him to infringe the plaintiffs' trademark.

The court acknowledged that a registered trademark confers a right to use, but also that rectification proceedings against Mandoth's mark were pending. It observed that issues regarding fabrication of documents and maintainability of the suit could only be decided after trial.

Issues of Fabrication and Maintainability Left for Trial

The judgment recorded that summons had been served on Mandoth on December 11, 2025, and that his application to reject the plaint was dismissed on March 23, 2026. No written statement was filed within the stipulated time under the Commercial Courts Act. The court left the objections concerning fabrication and maintainability for trial, finding no substantial reason to vacate the injunction at this stage.

Key Observations

"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 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 ."

Court's Decision

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu dismissed A.Nos.446 and 447 of 2026 (applications to vacate the injunction), made the injunction in O.A.No.1120 of 2025 absolute, and allowed O.A.No.1121 of 2025 (injunction protecting artistic work, trade dress, and colour combination). No order as to costs. The suit remains pending before the Commercial Division.