Can a Vernacular Translation or Transliteration of a Trademark Amount to Infringement?

Madras High Court considers whether using a phonetically and visually similar vernacular version of an established trademark can amount to infringement.

Businesses operating in India’s multilingual markets may use different scripts and regional-language versions of their brands. However, changing the script of a trademark does not necessarily eliminate the risk of infringement.

A recent order of the Madras High Court highlights this issue in a dispute concerning the trademark “GLOBE” and its Tamil version used on padlocks. The Court held, at the interim stage, that the use of a phonetically and visually similar mark in a vernacular language did not entitle the defendant to use the mark where the plaintiff had established prior use, reputation and goodwill.

The GLOBE Trademark Dispute

In Vikas Mandoth v. Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. & Anr., Shanghai Huanqiu Lock Making Company Ltd. and the proprietor of Prince Impex approached the Madras High Court concerning the use of the Tamil transliteration “குளோப்” of the “GLOBE” trademark on padlocks.

The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant was using a Tamil representation of “GLOBE” that was phonetically and visually similar to their trademark and was likely to cause consumer confusion.

The plaintiffs also alleged copying of elements of their product presentation, including the artistic work, colour combination and trade dress, giving rise to additional copyright-related claims.

The Court had previously granted an ex parte injunction against the defendant. The defendant subsequently sought to vacate that injunction, contending, among other things, that the mark had been independently adopted, was registered and had been used by him prior to the plaintiffs’ alleged rights.

What Did the Madras High Court Decide?

On 7 September 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed the applications seeking to vacate the injunction.

The Court observed that, prima facie, the plaintiff was the prior user of the trademark and that the mark had established reputation and goodwill in the market.

Importantly, the Court stated that the defendant’s attempt to use a phonetically and visually similar trademark/device in a vernacular language did not entitle the defendant to infringe the plaintiff’s established trademark.

The Court therefore continued the protection granted to the plaintiffs at the interim stage.

The Court also allowed the plaintiffs’ application concerning copyright protection for the artistic work, colour combination and trade dress of the padlocks.

Does Changing the Language or Script Avoid Trademark Infringement?

Not necessarily.

Trademark disputes are not determined simply by asking whether two marks are written in the same script.

Depending on the facts, relevant considerations can include:

• phonetic similarity;
• visual similarity;
• the overall impression created by the marks;
• the nature of the goods or services;
• the likelihood of confusion;
• prior use;
• reputation and goodwill; and
• the manner in which the competing mark is used in the market.

Accordingly, translating or transliterating a brand into a regional script should not automatically be treated as creating a legally independent mark.

The Madras High Court’s order is particularly relevant because the defendant’s mark was presented in a vernacular script, but the Court nevertheless considered its phonetic and visual similarity to the plaintiff’s mark along with the plaintiff’s prior use and established goodwill.

Prior Use Remains an Important Consideration

The dispute also demonstrates the importance of maintaining evidence of trademark use.

The defendant claimed prior use of the Tamil mark. However, the Court noted that the defendant’s trademark application, filed in 2023, described the mark as “proposed to be used.” The plaintiffs, meanwhile, produced documents supporting their claim of prior use.

This highlights the importance of ensuring consistency between:

• trademark applications;
• claimed dates of first use;
• invoices and sales records;
• packaging and labels;
• advertisements;
• distributor records; and
• other evidence of commercial use.

Where prior use is relied upon in a trademark dispute, documentary evidence can become particularly important.

What About a Separate Trademark Registration?

The defendant also relied on registration of the Tamil mark.

The Court noted that registration gives a proprietor statutory rights in the registered mark. However, registration is not necessarily the end of the dispute where another party asserts earlier rights. The Court noted that opposition and rectification proceedings concerning the defendant’s mark were already pending before the Trade Marks Registry.

This illustrates why businesses should not rely solely on the fact that a proposed mark is capable of registration. Trademark clearance should ideally precede adoption and filing.

Trademark and Copyright Protection Can Work Together

The dispute also demonstrates that a brand may involve several forms of intellectual property.

Apart from the word mark, businesses may have protectable rights in:

• logos;
• artistic works;
• packaging;
• labels;
• colour combinations;
• product presentation; and
• other original creative elements.

In this case, the plaintiffs’ claims extended beyond the trademark to alleged copying of artistic work, colour combination and trade dress, and the Court granted interim protection in relation to the copyright claim as well.

Businesses should therefore assess their branding from an IP portfolio perspective, rather than considering trademark registration in isolation.

What Should Businesses Do Before Adopting a Brand?

Businesses intending to launch or expand a brand in India should consider conducting a comprehensive trademark clearance exercise.

This may include:

1. Word-mark searches
Search for identical and deceptively similar registered and pending marks.

2. Phonetic searches
Identify marks that may sound similar despite differences in spelling.

3. Vernacular and transliteration searches
Where relevant, check regional-language equivalents and different-script versions of the proposed mark.

4. Goods and services analysis
Assess the relevant classes and the nature of existing businesses using similar marks.

5. Prior-use investigation
Examine whether an earlier user may have enforceable rights even where registration is absent.

6. Packaging and branding review
Assess whether logos, artwork, labels, colour combinations or other creative elements create separate IP considerations.

Changing the script does not change the legal risk. The GLOBE dispute is a useful reminder that a brand cannot necessarily escape an existing trademark simply by appearing in a different language. For businesses launching or localising a brand in India, the safer approach is to look beyond spelling and conduct proper phonetic, visual, vernacular and transliteration searches before adoption. A small investment in clearance at the outset can help avoid costly disputes, injunctions and the need to rebrand later.