Did Madras HC Deny Injunction Against Vijay’s TVK Flag Use?
Click to start listening
Synopsis
The Madras High Court has recently ruled against a request to stop Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam from using its flag. This pivotal decision highlights the complexities of trademark and copyright law within political contexts, raising questions about artistic freedom versus trademark rights.
Key Takeaways
- Madras High Court denied injunction against TVK flag use.
- The court cited design differences between the flags.
- Trademark and copyright issues were central to the case.
- The matter will be reconsidered on September 22.
- Claims of passing off were rejected due to lack of evidence.
Chennai, Aug 18 (NationPress) The Madras High Court on Monday refused to issue an interim injunction preventing actor Vijay's political party, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), from utilizing its flag. This decision followed a petition that claimed infringement of trademark and copyright. The application was submitted by G.B. Pachaiyappan, a trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, who asserted that TVK's flag bore a striking resemblance to the trust's registered trademark.
Pachaiyappan emphasized that both flags featured a red-yellow-red color scheme with three stripes, suggesting that this similarity could lead to public confusion.
The trust indicated that it had registered its flag in November 2023 and had actively used it since then, arguing that the design qualified as an artistic work deserving of protection.
However, a bench led by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy dismissed the plea for interim relief, noting that, despite the color similarities, the overall characteristics of the flags were distinct.
The trust's flag included a circle containing a fish, a tiger, a bow and arrow, along with the text 'Valarga Thalamurai'. In contrast, the TVK's flag displayed an oval shape featuring two elephants.
"It cannot be stated that the defendant's flag is a significant copy," the bench concluded.
Senior advocate Vijay Narayan, representing TVK, argued that neither the trust nor the party engaged in trade or commerce, thus the Trademark Act was not applicable. He also contended that the trust failed to demonstrate actual loss or that TVK gained unjustly.
While acknowledging some color similarities, Narayan maintained that the overall design and style of the flags were entirely different, eliminating the potential for confusion.
The court also dismissed the claim of passing off, asserting that the plaintiff failed to establish crucial elements such as goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Regarding copyright infringement, the court emphasized that substantial copying must be proven, which was not demonstrated.
Ultimately, the court determined that no justification existed for interim relief, dismissing the application and scheduling the matter for further review on September 22, while noting that its remarks were only preliminary at this stage.
Point of View
I believe this case highlights the delicate balance between artistic expression and intellectual property rights. The court's decision underscores the need for clear guidelines in trademark law, especially as it relates to political entities. Our commitment is to report fairly while emphasizing the importance of protecting creative works.
NationPress
19/08/2025
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the main issue in the Madras HC ruling?
The main issue was whether to grant an interim injunction to prevent Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) from using its flag, amid claims of trademark and copyright infringement.
Who filed the petition against TVK?
The petition was filed by G.B. Pachaiyappan, a trustee of the Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai.
What did the court conclude about the flags?
The court concluded that while the flags shared similar colors, their overall designs were sufficiently different, thus ruling out substantial copying.
What are the next steps following the court's decision?
The court has scheduled a further hearing for September 22 to consider the matter in greater detail.
Did the court find any evidence of passing off?
No, the court dismissed the claim of passing off, stating that the plaintiff did not prove essential elements such as goodwill and misrepresentation.
