No Interim Relief For Flag's Copyright & Trademark Infringement Without Substantial Similarity & Goodwill: Madras High Court - 2025-10-02

Madras High Court Denies Interim Injunction in Flag Dispute Between Trust and Political Party

Chennai: The Madras High Court, in a significant order concerning intellectual property rights in symbols used by social and political entities, has declined to grant an interim injunction to a trust that accused a political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, of infringing its trademark and copyright by using a visually similar flag.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that the trust, led by G B Pachaiyappan, failed to make a prima facie case for copyright infringement, trademark infringement, or passing off at this preliminary stage. The court found that the two flags were not substantially similar and that the plaintiff trust had not sufficiently established the goodwill and reputation necessary for a passing off action.

Background of the Dispute

The plaintiff, G B Pachaiyappan, founder of a trust established in August 2023 for social welfare services, filed a suit against the Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam political party. The plaintiff claimed proprietorship over a flag, which was registered as a trademark in Class 45 (social and informational services) and also asserted it was an "artistic work" protected under the Copyright Act, 1957.

The suit alleged that the political party's flag was a direct copy of the trust's flag, leading to claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The plaintiff sought an immediate interim order to restrain the party from using the impugned flag.

Arguments from Both Sides

Plaintiff's Contentions: - The trust's flag was an original artistic creation used even before the trust's formation, as evidenced by social media posts. - The defendants had copied the essential features of their flag, including the distinct red/maroon and yellow color combination. - As the prior user with a registered trademark, they were entitled to statutory and common law remedies against such infringement.

Defendant's Contentions: - The defendants argued that trademark law, which requires "a connection in the course of trade," does not apply as neither party is engaged in commercial trade. - A visual comparison reveals material differences: the defendants' flag features dancing elephants, a Vaagai flower, and stars within a central oval device, unlike the plaintiff's circle with a fish, tiger, and bow. - The plaintiff trust, with a total income of only Rs. 2,15,000, could not have established the necessary reputation and goodwill for a passing off claim. - The divergent activities of a social trust and a political party made public confusion or deception highly unlikely.

Court's Prima Facie Analysis

Justice Ramamoorthy systematically analyzed the three pillars of the plaintiff's claim for interim relief.

1. No Substantial Copying for Copyright Infringement: While acknowledging that a work need not be identical for infringement, the court found the differences between the flags to be significant.

"On prima facie comparison, it cannot be said that the defendants' flag is a substantial copy of the plaintiffs' flag. Therefore, I reject the claim for relief in respect of copyright infringement," the court observed after visually comparing the central devices—a circle with a fish/tiger versus an oval with elephants.

2. Trademark Infringement Claim Not Made Out: The court noted that while the plaintiff held a registration, protection under Section 17 of the Trade Marks Act is for the composite mark, not its individual elements like the color scheme, which was not separately registered.

"Even when examined from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection... it cannot be said that the use of the impugned flag is likely to cause deception or confusion," the judgment stated, emphasizing that the color scheme could not be considered the mark's essential feature in this context.

3. Insufficient Evidence for Passing Off: To succeed in a passing off action, the plaintiff must prove the "classical trinity": goodwill/reputation, misrepresentation, and damage. The court found the evidence lacking.

"The 2nd plaintiff trust was formed on 07.08.2023... The income and expenditure statement for the year ended on 31.03.2024 of the 2nd plaintiff shows that a total sum of Rs.2,15,000/- was received as donation... In light of this evidence, it is not possible to conclude that the plaintiffs have established reputation and goodwill in relation to the plaintiffs' flag," the order reasoned.

Final Decision and Implications

For the reasons stated above, the High Court rejected the applications for an interim injunction. However, it clarified that its observations were tentative and made solely for the purpose of deciding the interim applications. The main suit will proceed to trial where these issues will be decided conclusively based on detailed evidence from both sides. This ruling underscores the high evidentiary bar plaintiffs must cross to secure interim relief in intellectual property disputes, particularly in non-commercial contexts where goodwill and the likelihood of confusion are harder to establish.