Madras HC refuses to grant injunction to restrain Vijay’s TVK from using flag

Chennai, Aug 18 The Madras High Court on Monday declined to grant an interim injunction restraining actor Vijay’s political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from using its flag, after a petition alleged infringement of trademark and copyright.

The application was filed by G.B. Pachaiyappan, trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, who claimed that TVK’s flag closely resembled the trust’s registered trademark.

He argued that both flags used a red-yellow-red colour scheme with three stripes, and that the similarity could cause confusion.

The trust said it had registered its flag in November 2023 and had been using it since, contending that the design qualified as an artistic work entitled to protection.

A bench of Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, however, rejected the plea for interim relief with the judge pointing out that though both flags shared similar colours, their overall features were different.

The trust’s flag contained a circle with a fish, a tiger, a bow and arrow, and the words 'Valarga Thalamurai'.

In contrast, the TVK’s flag displayed an oval featuring two elephants.

"It cannot be said that the defendant’s flag is a substantial copy," the bench held.

Senior advocate Vijay Narayan, appearing for the TVK, argued that neither the trust nor the party was engaged in trade or commerce, and hence the Trademark Act did not apply. He further contended that the trust had not shown any loss or that the TVK had made unjust gains.

While acknowledging some similarity in colours, he insisted that the overall look and style of the two flags were entirely different, ruling out the possibility of confusion.

The court also rejected the claim of passing off, holding that the plaintiff had not proved the essential elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. On copyright infringement, it stressed that substantial copying must be established, which was not the case here.

Concluding that no case had been made for interim relief, the court dismissed the application and adjourned the matter to September 22 for detailed consideration, noting that its observations were only tentative at this stage.

Disclaimer: This post has been auto-published from an agency feed without any modifications to the text and has not been reviewed by an editor