Back
Using Tamil version of 'Globe' mark infringes registered trademark:
Court affirms against Vikas Mandoth, ruling that a vernacular adaptation of a registered trademark amounts to infringement
The has ruled that using a Tamil-language version of a registered trademark that is to the original mark constitutes . The decision came in a dispute over the "GLOBE" trademark for padlocks, where the court dismissed applications to vacate an and made the interim order absolute.
The Dispute at a Glance
The suit was filed by and Valaram , proprietor of , against Vikas Mandoth . The plaintiffs claimed that Mandoth was selling padlocks bearing the word "Globe" in Tamil, a mark they argued was deceptively similar to their registered "GLOBE" trademark, used for padlocks and hardware. They further alleged that Mandoth had copied the artistic work, colour combination, and trade dress of their products, amounting to .
On , the High Court granted an restraining Mandoth from using the disputed mark. Mandoth subsequently filed applications under A.Nos.446 and 447 of seeking to vacate that injunction, arguing that his Tamil mark was independently developed, registered, and that he was a .
Arguments from Both Sides
Plaintiffs’ Contentions
The plaintiffs’ counsel, , argued that Shanghai Huanqiu had built substantial reputation and for its "GLOBE" trademark in India and abroad. He contended that Mandoth’s Tamil mark was "" and "wholly deceptive," causing confusion among end users. He also pointed out that Mandoth’s own application for trademark registration had stated a "proposed to use" intent in , undermining his claim of .
Defendant’s Defence
, representing Mandoth, submitted that the Tamil mark was conceived independently, considering the nature of the goods. He argued that Mandoth had obtained registration for the Tamil device of "Globe" and could not be restrained from using a registered mark. He also raised procedural objections, including non-compliance with , and alleged that the plaintiffs’ invoices were fabricated, pointing to the interchangeable use of "Chennai" and "Madras" as evidence.
Court’s Legal Analysis
Justice K. Kumaresh Babu rejected the defendant’s arguments at the interim stage, holding that issues of fabrication and maintainability could only be decided after trial. The court noted that suit summons had been served in , that an application to reject the plaint had been dismissed, and that no written statement had been filed within the stipulated time under the .
Crucially, the court observed that Mandoth’s trademark registration application in had indicated a "proposed to use" basis, which directly contradicted his assertion of being a . While acknowledging that trademark registration confers a right to use, the court noted that opposition and rectification proceedings were pending against Mandoth’s mark.
The judge emphasised that the plaintiffs had placed materials on record to demonstrate and . The defendant’s attempt to use a mark in a vernacular language did not entitle him to infringe an established trademark.
Key Observations from the Judgment
"This Court concludes that the plaintiff had been the of the trade mark which commends a good reputation and in the market."
"The defendants attempt to use a 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 ."
"This Court do not find any substantial reasons to vacate the order."
Final Decision
The court dismissed Applications Nos. 446 and 447 of seeking to vacate the . It made the granted in O.A.No.1120 of 2025 absolute and allowed O.A.No.1121 of 2025 (relating to ). No order as to costs was passed.
The ruling reinforces the principle that adopting a vernacular adaptation of a well-known registered trademark, even if registered in a different script, can amount to infringement and . The case highlights the importance of and the inconsistency of a "proposed to use" claim with a defence of .
