Can a Trademark in a Vernacular Language Infringe an Existing Trademark? Madras High Court Explains

A trademark does not become legally safe merely because it is written in another language.

In a significant order dated 7 September 2026, the Madras High Court held that the use of a phonetically and visually similar trademark or device in a vernacular language would not entitle a person to infringe an established trademark having reputation and goodwill.

The decision highlights an important lesson for businesses: translation is not necessarily differentiation.

The Case Before the Court

In the case Vikas Mandoth Vs. M/s. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company (C.S.(COMM.DIV.) No. 307 of 2025), The plaintiff was a manufacturer of locks using the trademark “GLOBE”, which it claimed had registration, reputation, and goodwill in India and other countries. The defendant was alleged to have adopted a trademark that was phonetically and visually similar to the plaintiff’s mark.

The Court had earlier granted an ex parte injunction restraining the defendant from using identical or deceptively similar marks and artistic elements. The defendant subsequently filed applications seeking to vacate that injunction.

The Defendant’s Main Argument

The defendant argued that the trade name had been independently conceived and adopted in connection with its business activities.

A central defence was that the defendant had obtained registration for a device representing the same trade name “Globe” in the Tamil language.

The Court’s Key Finding on Vernacular Trademarks in paragraph 13 of the order as:

“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.”

What Does This Mean?

A business cannot necessarily avoid trademark infringement merely by:

Translating an existing trademark into a regional language;
Adopting a similar-sounding word in another script;
Using a visually similar device or logo;
Reproducing a distinctive trade identity in a vernacular form.

The Court’s reasoning focuses on the overall similarity and the established reputation of the earlier mark, rather than treating language or script as an automatic defence.

In practical terms, a mark written in Tamil, Marathi, Hindi, or another regional language may still create confusion if it is sufficiently similar in sound, appearance, or commercial impression to an existing trademark.

Why This Judgment Matters for Businesses

1. Different Script Does Not Always Mean Different Trademark

A trademark is not assessed only by the script in which it is written.

If consumers may perceive two marks as representing the same business or source, the use of a different language may not eliminate the risk of infringement.

2. Prior Use and Goodwill Remain Important

The Court gave significance to the plaintiff’s claim and supporting materials showing prior use, reputation, and goodwill.

This reinforces the importance of maintaining evidence such as:

Invoices and sales records;
Advertising and promotional material;
Packaging and labels;
Website and social media records;
Trademark registration documents;
Evidence of market presence;
Records showing continuous use of the mark.

A trademark dispute is often decided not merely by what a party claims, but by what it can demonstrate.

3. Trademark Registration Is Not the End of the Legal Analysis

Businesses sometimes assume that once a trademark is registered, its use cannot be challenged.

The Court recognised that trademark registration confers rights, but also noted that the law provides mechanisms for opposition, rectification, and removal from the register.

Therefore, registration should be viewed as an important legal protection—not as permission to disregard the rights of earlier trademark owners.

4. “Proposed to Be Used” and “Prior User” Claims Must Be Examined Carefully

The Court noted the apparent inconsistency between the defendant’s claim of prior use and the statement in its trademark application that the mark was “proposed to be used.”

This highlights the importance of ensuring that trademark applications, business records, invoices, and pleadings are consistent.

A business claiming prior use should be able to support that claim with credible and contemporaneous evidence.

5. Trademark Clearance Should Cover Regional-Language Variants

Before launching a brand, businesses should not restrict trademark searches to the exact English spelling.

A comprehensive clearance exercise may also need to consider:

Phonetically similar marks;
Transliteration into regional languages;
Translated versions of the brand;
Similar logos and devices;
Similar trade dress and colour combinations;
Existing marks used in the same or related classes.

This is particularly relevant for businesses operating across Maharashtra and other multilingual markets.

A Practical Lesson for Trademark Owners

Suppose a business has built goodwill under a particular brand name.

Another trader adopts a similar-sounding name, reproduces a similar logo, and writes it in a regional script.

The fact that the second trader uses a different language does not, by itself, answer the question of infringement.

The real questions include:

Is the mark phonetically similar?
Is the device visually similar?
Is the overall commercial impression deceptively similar?
Are the goods or services related?
Is there a likelihood of confusion?
Does the earlier mark possess reputation and goodwill?
Can the alleged infringer establish a genuine independent adoption and prior use?