Summary
In the case of G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, the Madras High Court rejected interim injunction applications seeking to restrain a political party led by actor Vijay from using a flag alleged to infringe trade mark and copyright rights and to amount to passing off. The court found no prima facie case of copyright infringement, held that the plaintiffs had not established likelihood of confusion under trade mark law, and found no evidence of goodwill to sustain a passing off claim.
Background:
Trade Mark, Copyright and Passing Off Claims The plaintiffs are a trustee and a public trust engaged in providing educational and social welfare services. They claimed proprietorship over a flag design adopted by the trust, which was also registered as a trade mark in Class 45. They alleged that the defendants, a political party and its president, adopted a flag that was identical or deceptively similar in design and colour scheme. The plaintiffs also claimed copyright over the artistic work in the flag and filed a suit seeking interim injunctions on the grounds of trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off.
Questions Before the Court
- Whether the defendants’ flag is a substantial copy of the plaintiffs’ flag amounting to copyright infringement.
- Whether the use of the defendants’ flag infringes the plaintiffs’ registered trade mark.
- Whether the defendants’ use of the flag amounts to passing off.
Arguments Presented By the Parties
Plaintiffs
- The plaintiffs contended that their flag qualifies as an artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act and is entitled to protection even without registration.
- They asserted ownership and prior use of the trade mark, registered in Class 45, covering social services.
- They argued that the defendants had copied the essential features and colour scheme of their flag, thereby infringing their trade mark and copyright.
- They claimed the use of the impugned flag was likely to deceive the public and amounted to passing off.
Defendants
- The defendants argued that neither party was engaged in trade, and therefore the Trade Marks Act did not apply.
- They submitted that the flags were materially different, with different colours, symbols, and artistic elements.
- They contended that the plaintiffs had not established goodwill or reputation in relation to the flag.
- They relied on recent case law to argue that there was no likelihood of confusion or misrepresentation.
Court’s Analysis
Analysis of Copyright Infringement
The court stated that even unregistered artistic works are protected under the Copyright Act. It assumed for the interim stage that the plaintiffs’ flag qualifies as an artistic work. However, the court said that copyright infringement requires substantial copying. Upon comparing both flags, the court observed that although both used similar colour schemes (red or maroon and yellow), the design elements, such as central devices and imagery, were different. According to the court, the defendants’ flag was not a substantial copy of the plaintiffs’ flag.
Analysis of Trade Mark Infringement
Noting that the plaintiffs’ trade mark registration was in Class 45 for social services, the court observed that whether not-for-profit services qualified as trade under the Trade Marks Act would require further examination. Assuming the mark was valid for the interim stage, the court stated that the plaintiffs’ mark was a composite one, and protection did not extend to individual elements such as colour combination. The court stated that the impugned flag did not adopt the essential features of the plaintiffs’ mark, and concluded that no likelihood of deception or confusion was established.
Analysis of Passing Off
The court stated that a claim for passing off must establish goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. It examined the plaintiffs’ financial documents and found that they did not show sufficient reputation or public recognition. As the trust had been recently formed, and the extent of its activities and beneficiaries was unclear, the court stated that the plaintiffs had not established goodwill or misrepresentation and therefore could not sustain a claim for passing off.
Findings
The court dismissed the interim applications for trade mark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off. The court clarified that its findings were prima facie and limited to the interim stage.
Relevant Paras
- On Copyright Infringement: “On prima facie comparison, it cannot be said that the defendants’ flag is a substantial copy of the plaintiffs’ flag.” (Para 7)
- On Trade Mark Infringement: “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.” (Para 10)
- On Passing Off: “It is not possible to conclude that the plaintiffs have established reputation and goodwill in relation to the plaintiffs’ flag.” (Para 11)
Case Citation
G B Pachaiyappan vs Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam, O.A.Nos.713 to 715 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div) No.178 of 2025, Madras High Court, decided on 18 August 2025.
https://indiankanoon.org/doc/138378184/ (Visited on 2 September 2025)
Disclaimer
This case blog is based on the author’s understanding of the judgment. Understandings and opinions of others may differ. An AI application was used to generate parts of this case blog.
Views are personal.
