Madras High Court Refuses To Lift Injunction Against Chennai Trader Over Use Of GLOBE Mark For Padlocks

The Madras High Court has refused to vacate an injunction restraining Chennai trader Vikas Mandoth from using a “GLOBE” mark on padlocks and other hardware goods.

The court prima facie concluded that Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. was the prior user of the mark and had established reputation and goodwill in the market, while Mandoth's mark/device was phonetically and visually similar.

Justice K. Kumaresh Babu also noted that Mandoth's trademark application, filed in 2023, stated that he had “proposed to use” the mark, despite his claim that he was a prior user. The court found no substantial reason to vacate the existing injunction.

The dispute was brought by Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., a Chinese lock manufacturer, and Valaram, proprietor of Prince IMPEX in Chennai, against Mandoth. The proceedings concern the use of “GLOBE” marks on padlocks and other hardware equipment, along with alleged copying of artistic work, trade dress, and colour combination.

The case is pending before the High Court's Commercial Division. In November 2025, the court had granted an injunction in favour of the lock manufacturer and Valaram. The order under challenge records that the injunction was granted on November 28, 2025.

Mandoth later filed two applications seeking to vacate that injunction.

The lock manufacturer and Valaram argued that their trademark had reputation and goodwill in India and other countries. They alleged that Mandoth had adopted a mark that was phonetically and visually similar and “wholly deceptive”.

Mandoth's counsel maintained that he had conceived the trade name independently, keeping in mind the nature of his goods and business activities. He also relied on registration of the trade name “Globe” in Tamil as a device and argued that he could not be restrained from using it.

The defence also questioned the maintainability of the suit under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. Mandoth argued that the mandatory procedure under the provision had not been followed and that the suit was therefore not maintainable.

Mandoth further argued that “Globe” was generic in nature and that the lock manufacturer could not claim exclusive ownership of the trademark. He also alleged commercial rivalry with Valaram and claimed that documents produced in support of the case were fabricated.

The court did not decide those issues at this stage. It observed that questions concerning the maintainability of the suit and alleged fabrication of documents could be concluded only after trial and after hearing the parties' arguments.

Summons had been served on Mandoth on December 11, 2025, while his application seeking rejection of the plaint was dismissed on March 23, 2026. The court further recorded that it did not find any written statement filed within the stipulated time under the Commercial Courts Act.

The court also noted that opposition and rectification proceedings concerning the trademarks were pending before the Registry.

It found that the lock manufacturer and Valaram had placed material showing their use of the disputed trademark and their status as prior users. Although Mandoth claimed to be a prior user, his 2023 trademark application stated that he had “proposed to use” the trademark.

The court acknowledged that registration of a trademark gives its proprietor a right to use the mark. It also noted that the law permits a trademark to be rectified or removed from the register.

The court found no substantial reason to vacate the injunction. It held that the objections concerning alleged fabrication of documents and the maintainability of the suit could be decided after trial.

The court prima facie concluded that the lock manufacturer was the prior user of the trademark and that it had reputation and goodwill in the market. It further observed that Mandoth's attempt to use a phonetically and visually similar trademark/device in a vernacular language did not entitle him to infringe the trademark.

The court ultimately dismissed Mandoth's applications seeking to lift the injunction. It made the trademark injunction permanent and also allowed the separate injunction protecting the plaintiffs' artistic work, trade dress, and colour combination.