Follow TNM’s WhatsApp channel for news updates and story links.
The Madras High Court, on Monday, August 18, declined to grant an interim injunction restraining actor Vijay’s political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from using its party flag. The court was hearing a case filed by Chennai-based trust Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, alleging trademark and copyright infringement by TVK.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy rejected the trust’s contention that TVK’s red-yellow-red tricolour flag with a central emblem was similar to their registered flag and logo. According to Live Law, the judge observed, “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 trust, represented by advocate Ramesh Ganapathy, had argued that its flag, registered in November 2023 and used since then, was a distinctive artistic work and entitled to protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999 and Copyright Act, 1957. It alleged that TVK’s adoption of a nearly identical flag with red and yellow stripes and a central design was intended to ride on its goodwill, thereby misleading the public.
According to Bar and Bench, the court noted, “Prima facie, I find that the colour schemes cannot be characterised as the essential feature. Even when examined from the perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollection availing services of the plaintiffs, it cannot be said that the use of the impugned flag is likely to cause deception or confusion among the public.”
Senior advocate Vijay Narayan, appearing for Vijay and TVK, countered the allegations, stating that while there may be similarities in colour combinations, the design, symbolism, and purpose of the party flag were distinct. He argued that trademarks were linked to goods and services in commerce, and neither the trust nor the political party operated in such a commercial domain.
He added, “There is absolutely no pleading to show how any loss has been caused to the plaintiff. When two people are operating in different fields, and there is no similarity in flags, no case for injunction is made out.”
The court also remarked that overlaps in flag colours were common, given the limited palette available. “Same colour combinations are played around so much, because you have limited options. So many flags, there are a lot of similarities. Sometimes, the only thing different is one flag will be vertical and another horizontal.”
The court further dismissed the passing-off petition, observing that the plaintiff failed to establish goodwill, misrepresentation, or damage. Legal action is taken under the provisions of a passing-off petition if the complainant faces potential harm to their business reputation and goodwill.
The court also emphasised that the order was an interim ruling, stating that its observations were tentative and meant only for disposal of the injunction plea. The matter has been posted for further hearing on September 22.