“Different language” does not necessarily mean “different trademark”
16 October 2026
In Vikas Mandoth v. M/s. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd., the Madras High Court ruled in favour of the plaintiff, Shanghai Huanqiu, a Chinese lock manufacturing company, which accused the defendant, Mandoth, a padlock seller, of using a trademark which is phonetically and visually similar to its own registered mark. The difference is that the defendant adopted the same trademark using vernacular language which is Tamil.
According to the defendant, their camp created the trademark using an independent process.
The court’s order, pronounced on September 7, 2026 and published in Verdictum, reads: “This Court prima facie concludes that the plaintiff had been the prior user of the trademark which commends a good reputation and good will in the market. The defendant’s 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 goodwill.”
Yash Agarwal | an associate @ Khurana & Khurana, Noida
For Yash Agarwal, an associate at Khurana & Khurana in Noida, a key takeaway is that “different language” does not necessarily mean “different trademark”. “Vernacular use does not automatically avoid infringement. What matters ultimately is whether the competing marks, viewed from the perspective of the relevant consumer and in their commercial context, are likely to create confusion or an association between the sources of the goods or services,” he remarked.
Another takeaway from the case is that using an existing trademark and converting it from English script into a regional script is not a safe harbour.
The case also shows that phonetic and visual similarity remain relevant. “The court looked beyond the script and considered how the competing marks would be perceived and understood by the relevant consumer,” explained Agarwal.
According to him, the court adopted a substance-over-form approach rather than treating the difference in script as determinative. “It considered the phonetic and visual similarity between the rival marks. The decision reflects the practical realities of India’s multilingual marketplace,” he said, “where consumers may identify and pronounce a mark notwithstanding the script in which it is represented.”
Agarwal said this approach is consistent with earlier decisions. One of these is Hindustan Lever Ltd. v. Pioneer Soap Factory, which revolved around the use of “Suraj” as the Hindi equivalent of “Sun”. “These precedents demonstrate that a difference in language or script cannot be treated as a mechanical defence where the competing marks convey the same or substantially similar commercial identity to the relevant consumer,” he said.
Lastly, the case highlights that a subsequent registration does not automatically defeat the rights of a prior user, as the Madras High Court gave significance to the plaintiffs’ claim of prior use and goodwill.
- Espie Angelica A. de Leon
