Translation Of Trade Names & Infringement: The Doctrine Of Foreign Equivalents Under Indian Trademark Law

Introduction

The trademark law shields brand identity and avoids consumer confusion in the market. Conventionally, courts have been using visual similarity, phonetic similarity, and structural similarity comparison to determine the similarity of the marks. However, in the case of multilingual communities like India, similarity can be achieved not only through appearance or even sound but also through meaning. The law that deals with this case of similarity is termed as the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents whereby a translated form of trademark can be infringement when it holds the same trade impression.

The implementation of this principle over years can be discussed with references to two cases of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court: Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industries Ltd. (1994) and Victoria Foods Pvt Ltd. vs Ashad Trading Co. (2026). These two cases show that Indian courts uphold trademarks against infringement under the conceptual equivalence and translation of Infringements.

The Source of the Principle: Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industries Ltd. (1994)

The case in Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industries Ltd. originated when the plaintiff, who was a producer of plastic domestic products, aimed on keeping the defendant out of exploiting the identical mark, PEACOCK, on analogous products. The defendant was a registered owner of the trademark consisting of “MAYUR”, which is a Sanskrit word that signifies a peacock. The plaintiff claimed that the mark the defendant was using was simply the English translation of the registered mark it had and was thus infringement. The Delhi High Court looked at the possibility of translation of a trademark into a foreign language causing a deceptive similarity. The Court noted that, “MAYUR” means a bird popularly referred to in India as “MOR”, which in English language is peacock. As the plaintiff had already used the mark previously and the defendant was selling the same commodities, there was a high possibility that the translation of the mark would be confusing to consumers.

Notably, the Court pointed out that in a situation where a trademark is translated into a foreign language, there are chances that buyers would be left with the impression that the products have the same source. The Court determined that the use of the mark by the defendant was misleadingly like that of "MAYUR" and injunction was ordered against the defendant to use the mark.

The ruling reaffirmed some of the following principles: First, conceptual similarity and not phonetic one can amount to infringement of a trademark; Second, prior use and registration give the plaintiff a significant statutory protection; and, Third, the size or financial strength of the infringing party does not matter in thrusting the defendant with the infringement claim.

Victoria Foods v. In the Modern Context. Ashad Trading Co. (2026)

Over thirty years later, this principle was re-considered by the Delhi High court in Victoria Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashad Trading Co. The plaintiff owned the trademark name of a multi-brand of food products which is known as RAJDHANI, and the name was applied to atta, maida, pulses, and vermicelli. The company had a broad covering of trademarks and had developed high levels of goodwill through commercial and advertising achievement.

In one of the market surveys, the plaintiff found out that the defendants were selling vermicelli under the signs TAJDHANI and CAPITAL. The allegations as claimed by the plaintiff were that TAJDHANI was pronounceably related to RAJDHANI and CAPITAL was the English translation of the former. Moreover, the defendants were using packaging and trade dress, which was the same as that of the products of the plaintiff.

The Delhi High Court concurred with the position taken by the plaintiff. Using the same case as in Bhatia Plastics, the Court got down to the point that the word of the English language CAPITAL is the equivalent of the word in the Hindi language RAJDHANI hence its application against the same goods was deemed as infringement of trademark and passing off. The Court also noted that duplication of the trade dress and packaging increased the chances of buyer confusion.

In turn, the Court passed an ex-parte ad interim injunction according to which the defendants were prohibited to produce, sell or promote products under the name TAJDHANI or CAPITAL or a deceptively similar name.

Indian Trademark Law Doctrine of Foreign Equivalent

Overall, both cases reflect how the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents operates in India. According to this doctrine, a court would gauge how the translation of a mark would be perceived by the consumer of a reasonable mind of both languages as having the same meaning as that of the original mark.

In case the translation produces the same commercial impression, the marks can be discussed as deceptively similar despite their visual or phonetic difference. The doctrine hence safeguards the proprietors of trademarks against efforts to defraud the protection of trademarks merely by converting the mark into a different language.

The doctrine is relevant in India due to its huge linguistic diversity. The consumers also often change languages between Hindi, English, Punjabi, Tamil, or even Bengali. A trader who translates an existing mark against another language could thus easily confuse the consumers about where the goods came from.

Businesses and Trademark Strategy Implications

These choices outline some of the key learnings of businesses that work in multilingual markets.

The first thing is that trademark clearance searches are not to be restricted to identical and phonetically similar marks. It is also important that businesses should take into consideration translations and conceptual equivalence in different languages.

Second, a translated copy of a competitor’s mark would not offer much protection under the law. Courts do not mind going around the linguistic differences and identifying the meaning behind a mark.

Third, goodwill and prior use, as well as strong evidence of same, is quite strong in supporting the claim of injunctive relief on the part of a trademark owner.

Lastly, these cases have shown how voluntarily the Indian courts are willing to grant interim injunctions in instances where consumers are likely to get confused.

Conclusion

The judgement in the case of Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industries Ltd. and Victoria Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Ashad Trading Co. presents the fact of relevance of the Doctrine of Foreign Equivalents in the Indian trademark law. The Delhi High Court has made sure that the protection of trademarks is not restricted by languages thereby acknowledging that a conceptual similarity may be a result of translation.

This practice is very essential in a market place which is more globalised and multilingual to avoid unfair competition and provision of protection to consumer confidence. Businesses should hence be careful in choosing the names of their brands and their chosen mark should not have a similar meaning to an already used trademark in a different language.

References

• https://chambers.com/articles/the-doctrine-of-foreign-equivalents-in-trademark-law#:~:text=The%20Doctrine%20of%20Foreign%20Equivalents%20in%20Trademark%20Law
• https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2026/03/06/del-hc-capital-as-translation-of-rajdhani-is-trade-mark-infringement/#:~:text=that%20the%20mark,data%20is%20processed.
• Victoria Foods (P) Ltd. v. Ashad Trading Co., 2026 SCC OnLine Del 86
• Bhatia Plastics v. Peacock Industry, 1994 SCC OnLine Del 387

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.