The Madras High Court has refused to restrain actor Vijay’s Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) from using its yellow-maroon flag. The Court said there is no prima facie case of copyright or trademark infringement.
Chennai: On August 18, In a big relief for Tamil actor Vijay and his political party Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK), the Madras High Court refused to stop the party from using its yellow-maroon flag. The interim plea was filed by a Chennai-based trust, which had alleged that Vijay’s party copied its registered flag design.
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy heard the matter, which involves charges of copyright and trademark infringement, as well as passing off.
After looking at the material placed before him, the judge said he was not convinced at this stage that TVK’s flag was copied from the flag of the trust, Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, led by GB Pachaiyappan.
The judge said,
“On prima facie comparison, it cannot be said that defendant’s flag is substantial copy of plaintiffs’ flag. Therefore, I reject the claim for relief with respect to alleged infringement of copyright … Significantly, plaintiffs do not have separate (trademark) registration for the colour combination.. It is, no doubt, true that essential features of a mark may be considered … Even so, on prima facie comparison, I find that the colour schemes cannot be characterised as the essential feature. While minute comparison is not warranted, even when examined from perspective of a person of average intelligence and imperfect recollecting 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. All that remains, is request for relief for alleged passing off … It is not possible to conclude that plaintiffs have established reputation and goodwill in relation to plaintiff’s flag. For such reasons.. request for relief in relation to alleged passing off is also denied.”
The Court clarified that these are only temporary observations made for the limited purpose of deciding whether to grant an interim restraining order. The judge said that the final decision will come later after a detailed hearing. The case will now be taken up again in September.
For the plaintiff trust, Advocate Ramesh Ganapathy appeared, while Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan represented TVK and Vijay.
The trust and its founder Pachaiyappan claimed that TVK’s party flag, revealed in August 2024, is visually and conceptually very close to their own registered flag. The trust’s flag has a red-yellow-red tricolour with a circular motif at the centre.
They said they have been using this flag since 2023 for their social service activities, which include publishing a Tamil magazine called Saandror Kural and running a YouTube channel by the same name. The trademark was officially registered under Class 45 on June 1, 2024. The plaintiffs also argued that the circular motif is an original artistic work and deserves copyright protection.
In their complaint, they said that TVK’s flag was “almost the same” as their design and could mislead the public. They further accused the party of acting in bad faith and trying to benefit from the “goodwill and reputation” that the trust had already created with its flag.
The trust requested the Court to ban Vijay and his party from using the TVK flag, order payment of Rs 5 lakh as damages for copyright and trademark infringement, and also hold them guilty of passing off. They also asked for disclosure of profits made using the disputed flag, destruction of all materials like banners, advertisements, and flags featuring the design, and reimbursement of their litigation costs.
During Monday’s hearing, Advocate Ganapathy argued that the trust had registered its trademark even before Vijay entered politics in 2024.
He said that since both the trust and TVK work in the field of community services, there was a real chance that the public could get confused because both were using flags with yellow and red colours.
On the other hand, Senior Advocate Vijay Narayan, representing TVK, strongly opposed the allegations. He admitted there are some similarities in colours but highlighted that TVK’s flag has unique elements like elephants in the centre, a vaagai flower, and symbolic meanings attached to maroon and yellow.
Narayan said that TVK’s flag is much more than just a colour scheme. It was meant to
“inspire democratic aspiration, social unity, symbolize the unwavering spirit of Tamil people and more.”
He also told the Court,
“I will admit there is some similarity in colour combination.. But in get up (they are distinct).. There is no scope for confusion, especially when they are operating in different fields. One party is charitable organisation (other a political party) … To say, that I have deliberately copied his (design) to cause loss – there is absolutely no pleading to show how any loss has been caused to him … There has to be some possibility of confusion. When two people are operating in different fields, and there is no similarly in flags, at this stage, no case for injunction.”
The judge also shared an important observation, noting that there are only a limited number of colour combinations available when flags are designed, so similarities are bound to occur.
He remarked,
“Same colour combinations are played around so much, because you have limited options. So many flags, there are lot of similarities. Sometimes, only thing different is one flag will be vertical and another horizontal.”
The plaintiff trust was represented by a team of lawyers including Advocates Subashini IM, Rajeev M, Kavya RB, Tharun Rajan AS, and Santhiya V.
Background of The Case
Earlier, the High Court had issued notice to actor Vijay and his party in a civil case filed against them for alleged trademark and copyright infringement. The case was filed by GB Pachaiyappan along with the trust he represents, called Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai.
The notice was issued by Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy, and the matter was listed for further hearing on July 29. The petitioners argued that the TVK party flag, which was officially unveiled to the public in August 2024, looks very similar both visually and conceptually to the trust’s registered flag.
The trust’s flag is described as having a red-yellow-red tricolour pattern with a circular design in the center. According to official trademark records, Pachaiyappan had applied for registration of this design on November 28, 2023, under Class 45, which covers “personal and social services rendered by others to meet individual needs.”
This application was made in his personal capacity with the help of his lawyer, Newton Reginald. The flag also contains the words:
“THONDAI MANDALA SAANDROR DHARMA PARIBALANA SABAI”
along with the Tamil tagline:
“VAAZHGA TAMIL – VALARGA THALAIMURAI.”
The English meaning of this tagline is:
“Thondai Zone Witnesses Virtue Upkeep Council; Long Live Tamil – Grow Up Generation.”
The trust told the court that they have been using this particular flag design since 2023. It is also used in connection with their activities like publishing a Tamil magazine called Saandror Kural and running a YouTube channel under the same name.
They further pointed out that the trademark for the flag design was officially registered on June 1, 2024, under Class 45. In addition, they argued that the circular design in the center of the flag is an original artistic creation, which is automatically protected under copyright law.
The petitioners alleged that the flag used by Vijay’s TVK is “almost the same” as their flag and could mislead the general public into thinking both belong to the same group.
They also accused TVK of acting in bad faith by adopting a design that closely resembles theirs, in order to “take advantage of the trust’s goodwill and reputation” that has already been built around the original flag.
In their legal plea, the plaintiffs demanded that the court impose a permanent ban preventing TVK and Vijay from using this disputed flag in the future. They also asked for damages worth Rs 5 lakh for the alleged infringement and for attempting to pass off the design as their own.
Apart from this, they requested an order directing the defendants to disclose any profits earned through the use of the controversial flag. They also asked the court to order the destruction of all materials featuring the disputed design, including flags, pamphlets, advertisements, and other printed items.
The petitioners further sought reimbursement of litigation costs. In addition, they requested that the case should not go through the usual mediation process under Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act. They argued that the matter is urgent and “any delay may cause serious harm.”
The trust was represented by a team of lawyers including Ramesh Ganapathy, Subashini IM, Rajeev M, Kavya RB, Tharun Rajan AS, and Santhiya V.
Case Title:
GB Pachaiyappan v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam
Click Here to Read Our Reports on Actor Vijay
