Madras High Court Scrutinizes TVK Flag in Trademark Appeal Against Actor Vijay's Party

CHENNAI – The Madras High Court has elevated a dispute over political symbolism to the appellate level, issuing a notice to actor-turned-politician Vijay and his fledgling party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK). A Division Bench will now re-examine claims of trademark and copyright infringement concerning the party's flag, which a single judge previously allowed to fly unencumbered.

The Bench, comprising Justice G Jayachandran and Justice Mummineni Sudheer Kumar, has called upon Vijay and TVK to respond to an appeal filed by the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, a Chennai-based trust. The appeal, docketed as O.S.A (CAD) 102 of 2025, challenges a single judge's order from August 18, which denied an interim injunction to prevent TVK from using its flag. The matter has been adjourned for six weeks, prolonging the legal uncertainty surrounding the new political entity's primary symbol.

This case presents a fascinating intersection of intellectual property law, political expression, and non-commercial activity, posing critical questions about the scope of trademark protection for symbols that operate outside traditional marketplaces.

The Genesis of the Dispute: A Clash of Symbols

The legal battle was initiated by G.B. Pachaiyappan, a trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai. The trust alleges that TVK's flag is a "deceptively similar" imitation of its own registered mark. The core of the complaint rests on visual parallels: a red and yellow colour combination and a three-stripe design.

According to the trust, this visual identity is not merely decorative but a unique and distinctive mark used in connection with its social services since 2023. The petitioner argued that this usage has cultivated significant reputation and goodwill. To formalize their claim, the trust filed a trademark registration application in November 2023.

The petitioner's central legal argument is that TVK's adoption of a near-identical flag constitutes a multifaceted intellectual property violation, encompassing trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and the common law tort of passing off. They contend that the similarity is potent enough to cause "confusion and deception" among the public, potentially leading people to associate the political party with the trust's social work, or vice-versa.

The Single Judge's Dismissal: A High Bar for Infringement

In August, a single judge of the High Court comprehensively rejected the trust's plea for an interim injunction. The court's decision dissected the three pillars of the petitioner's claim:

1. Copyright Infringement: The petitioner had asserted that their flag qualifies as an "artistic work" and is therefore eligible for copyright protection. However, the single judge found no evidence to suggest that the TVK party's flag was a "substantial copy" of the petitioner's design, thereby dismissing this claim at the prima facie stage.

2. Trademark Infringement: This was the most contentious area. TVK mounted a foundational defense, arguing that the Trademark Act was inapplicable. Their counsel submitted that "since neither the plaintiff nor the defendants were engaged in any trade or commerce, they could not claim relief under the Trademark Act." They argued that a trademark is intrinsically linked to goods and services, a connection they claimed was absent in this dispute between a social trust and a political party. While acknowledging similarities in colour, TVK maintained that the "total getup, look and style of the two marks were totally different and there was no possibility of any confusion."

3. Passing Off: To succeed in a passing off claim, a plaintiff must establish the "classical trinity": goodwill and reputation, misrepresentation by the defendant, and resulting damage. The single judge concluded that the petitioner had failed to adequately establish these three essential elements, leading to the rejection of this claim as well.

This initial ruling set a high evidentiary bar for parties seeking to protect symbols in non-commercial contexts and appeared to give significant weight to the argument that trademark law's primary domain is the marketplace.

The Appeal: Re-litigating Colour, Commerce, and Confusion

Unsatisfied with the single judge's reasoning, the trust has escalated the matter to the Division Bench. The appeal seeks to overturn the earlier order and secure the injunction that would force TVK to cease using its flag. The arguments presented during the initial hearing are likely to be sharpened and re-litigated with greater intensity.

A key point of contention is the protection of colour combinations. When questioned by the single judge about whether the specific colour scheme was registered, the petitioner highlighted a crucial aspect of modern trademark law. "The petitioner pointed out that as per the new Trademark Act, when a mark was registered in colour, it was assumed that the colour scheme was also registered," the source material notes. This argument will be central to the appeal, as the Division Bench will have to interpret the extent to which colour alone, or in combination, can serve as a source identifier for a non-commercial entity.

Furthermore, the appellate court will likely delve deeper into the applicability of the Trademark Act to political and social organizations. While TVK's argument that the Act is confined to "trade or commerce" has initial appeal, courts have often interpreted "services" broadly. The Division Bench will need to consider whether the activities of a social trust or a political party, while not commercial, constitute a form of "service" to the public that can be associated with a distinctive mark worthy of protection.

Broader Implications for Political Parties and IP Law

The outcome of this appeal will have significant ramifications beyond the immediate parties. As political branding becomes increasingly sophisticated, the symbols, logos, and colours used by parties are more valuable—and more vulnerable—than ever. This case could establish a crucial precedent in Indian law on several fronts:

• Protection for Non-Commercial Marks: It will clarify the extent to which non-profits, trusts, and political parties can leverage trademark law to protect their identifying symbols from imitation.
• The Threshold for "Deceptive Similarity": The court's analysis of the two flags will provide guidance on what constitutes actionable similarity in the context of abstract symbols and colour schemes, as opposed to brand names or commercial logos.
• The Role of "Artistic Work" in Copyright: A deeper examination of whether a flag's design can be protected as an "artistic work" could impact how organizations protect their visual identities.

While the legal battle unfolds in the courtroom, TVK's political activities continue unabated. The party is making elaborate arrangements for public gatherings and campaign events, with the disputed flag prominently displayed on banners and merchandise like water bottles. This continued and widespread use of the flag could become a factor in the court's assessment of potential public confusion and the urgency of granting an injunction. The case remains a critical watch for intellectual property practitioners and political analysts alike, as the Madras High Court prepares to draw the line between inspiration and infringement in the political arena.