Authority: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Order Date: 07 September 2026
Case Overview
- Parties: Applicants – Vikas Mandoth and KLP Abhinandan (address: F‑1701, No.1, Strahans Road, Pattalam, Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai‑12); Respondents – M/s Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd, Shanghai, China (represented by authorized representative Vikram Kumar, office at No 8 Reddy Raman Street, 4th Floor, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600079) and Mr. Valaram, proprietor of M/s Prince IMPEX, No 33 Reddy Raman Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai 600079.
- Original Applications (OA Nos. 1120 & 1121 of 2025): Filed to obtain ad‑interim injunctions restraining the respondents from (a) passing off goods using the impugned trademark “GLOBE” in Class 06 (padlocks and hardware) that are identical or deceptively similar to the plaintiff’s registered Chinese trademark, and (b) infringing the plaintiffs’ copyright by using identical or deceptively similar artistic work, trade dress, colour combination, logo or design.
- Prayer in A.Nos. 446 & 447 of 2026: Applications to vacate the ex‑parte injunctions dated 28 Nov 2025 granted in OA 1120 and OA 1121.
- Procedural History: Suit summons served on defendants on 11 Dec 2025; application to reject the plaint dismissed on 23 Mar 2026; no written statement filed within the time prescribed under the Commercial Courts Act. Oppositions and rectification applications concerning the trademarks are pending before the Registry.
- Arguments:
- Plaintiff’s counsel (Mr. Jayesh Kumar Daga) argued that the plaintiff’s “GLOBE” trademark enjoys reputation and goodwill in India and abroad, and the defendants’ use is phonetically and visually identical, causing deception. The plaintiff also highlighted the defendants’ prior registration of “Globe” in Tamil, which does not override the plaintiff’s prior use.
- Defendant’s counsel (Mr. Ramesh Ganapathy) contended that the trade name was independently created, that the defendants have a Tamil‑language registration for “Globe,” and that the suit is non‑maintainable for not complying with Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. The counsel also alleged fabrication of documents (e.g., interchangeable use of “Chennai” and “Madras” in invoices) and claimed commercial enmity.
- Court’s Observations:
1. The plaintiff is the prior user of the “GLOBE” trademark, which carries goodwill.
2. The defendants’ claim of prior use is weakened by their own trademark registration application made in 2023, indicating a proposal to use the mark.
3. While issues of document fabrication and suit maintainability require trial, they do not constitute sufficient grounds to vacate the injunction.
4. The pending opposition/rectification proceedings do not affect the interim injunction’s validity.
5. No written statement was filed, and the suit summons were duly served.
Final Outcome
- Applications A.Nos. 446 & 447 of 2026 are dismissed.
- The ex‑parte injunction granted in OA No. 1120 of 2025 is made absolute.
- The injunction in OA No. 1121 of 2025 is also allowed.
- No order as to costs was made.
Topics: Trademark Enforcement, Court Injunction