`Madras HC Refuses Injunction in TVK Flag Dispute, Cites Lack of 'Substantial Copying' and 'Confusion'

CHENNAI – In a significant interlocutory order with implications for the application of intellectual property law to political symbols, the Madras High Court has declined to grant an interim injunction against actor C. Joseph Vijay’s political party, the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). The court, presided over by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, found that the plaintiff, a registered trust, failed to establish a prima facie case for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or passing off concerning the design and colour scheme of TVK's party flag.

The ruling on August 18, 2025, provides temporary relief to the newly formed political entity, allowing it to continue using its flag pending the final disposal of the civil suit. The court's detailed preliminary analysis of the "substantial copying" standard in copyright and the likelihood of "public confusion" in trademark law offers valuable insights for practitioners navigating IP disputes outside traditional commercial spheres.

---

Background of the Dispute

The civil suit was initiated by G.B. Pachaiyappan, a trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, a Chennai-based registered trust. The plaintiff alleged that TVK's party flag was deceptively similar to the Trust’s flag, which was registered as a trademark in November 2023.

The core of the plaintiff's argument rested on a triad of intellectual property claims:

1. Copyright Infringement: The Trust's flag, characterized by a red-yellow-red tricolour pattern, was an "artistic work" under the Copyright Act, 1957, and TVK's flag was a substantial and infringing copy.

2. Trademark Infringement: By adopting a nearly identical colour scheme and structure, TVK infringed upon the Trust's registered trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion among the public, especially since both entities were engaged in similar public service activities.

3. Passing Off: The plaintiff contended that TVK was attempting to ride on the goodwill and reputation established by the Trust, thereby misrepresenting an association and causing potential damage.

The plaintiff, represented by advocate Ramesh Ganapathy, emphasized that under the new Trademark Act, the registration of a mark in colour implies the protection of the colour scheme itself.

TVK's Defense: Distinguishing Political Expression from Commerce

Appearing for TVK, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan presented a robust defense, arguing that the fundamental premise of the suit was flawed. He contended that the Trademarks Act, 1999, is rooted in "trade and commerce," a domain in which neither a political party nor the plaintiff Trust operates. A trademark, he argued, is inherently linked to goods and services, a connection absent in this case.

While acknowledging a similarity in the colour combination, Narayan asserted that the "total getup, look and style" of the two flags were distinct, precluding any possibility of confusion. He further argued that the plaintiff had failed to plead, let alone prove, any specific loss or unjust enrichment—a critical element for securing an injunction.

In a counter affidavit, TVK's general secretary detailed the deep ideological and cultural symbolism embedded in their flag's design. The maroon bands were said to represent revolution and discipline, the central yellow band symbolized hope and joy, and the central device—the Vaagai flower and elephants—was a historic Tamil symbol of victory. This was presented not as a commercial mark, but as a "carefully curated expression meant to inspire unity, cultural pride, historical continuity, social commitment, and democratic aspiration."

Court's Prima Facie Analysis: A Tripartite Rejection

Justice Ramamoorthy meticulously dissected each of the plaintiff's claims at the interlocutory stage, concluding that a case for an injunction had not been made out.

1. No 'Substantial Copying' for Copyright Infringement

Proceeding on the assumption that the plaintiff's flag qualified as an "artistic work," the court focused on the crucial test for copyright infringement: whether there was substantial copying. The judge observed that while both flags employed a red/maroon and yellow tricolour scheme, their central devices were markedly different.

"The plaintiff's flag contains a circle or sphere... the image of a fish is seen on the left and the image of a leaping tiger is seen on the right... In comparison, in the yellow segment of the defendant's flag, an oval device is seen... an image of elephants in motion is seen. It cannot be said that the defendant’s flag is a substantial copy of the plaintiff’s flag. Therefore, I reject the claim for relief with respect to the claim of alleged copyright infringement," the court held.

This finding underscores that in copyright analysis, colour similarity alone is insufficient; the overall composition and distinct creative elements are paramount.

2. No Likelihood of Confusion for Trademark Infringement

On the trademark claim, the court cautiously avoided a definitive finding on whether a political party's or trust's activities constitute "trade" under the Act, leaving the question open for the final hearing.

However, assuming for interlocutory purposes that the plaintiff's mark was protectable, the court examined the likelihood of confusion. It held that the colour scheme could not be characterized as the "essential feature" of the mark, especially given the distinct central emblems.

"While minute comparison is not warranted, even when examined from the perspective of a person of average intelligence availing services of the plaintiff, it cannot be said that the impugned flag is likely to cause confusion among the public," the court observed.

This reasoning reinforces the principle that while the anti-dissection rule prevents breaking a mark into its components, courts can still identify and weigh its essential features when assessing similarity.

3. Failure to Establish the 'Classical Trinity' of Passing Off

The court swiftly dismissed the passing off claim, noting that the plaintiff had failed to prima facie establish the three requisite elements: (1) existing goodwill and reputation, (2) misrepresentation by the defendant leading to public deception, and (3) actual or potential damage to that goodwill. Without evidence on these fronts, the claim could not be sustained at the interim stage.

Legal and Political Implications

This order, while tentative, highlights the judiciary's careful balancing act when intellectual property rights intersect with the realm of political expression. The court demonstrated a reluctance to grant a powerful remedy like an injunction that could stifle political activity without compelling evidence of infringement and harm.

For legal professionals, the case serves as a reminder of the high evidentiary threshold required for interim injunctions. The plaintiff's failure to demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong prima facie case proved fatal to its application. Furthermore, the court's commentary on the non-commercial nature of the entities involved signals a potential battleground for the scope of the Trademarks Act in future litigation involving non-profits, trusts, and political organizations.

The matter has been adjourned to September 22, 2025, when the substantive merits of the civil suit will be further deliberated. Until then, TVK is free to fly its colours, having won the first round in this unique intellectual property battle.