Introduction
This case study analyzes the recent decision of the Madras High Court in *G B Pachaiyappan & Anr. vs. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam & Anr.*, rendered by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy on August 18, 2025. The suit involved a multi-pronged intellectual property dispute, including claims of trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and passing off, centering around the use of distinctive flags by a public charitable trust and a political party. At the interlocutory stage, the decision provides important judicial clarity on the application of trademark and copyright laws in the context of non-profit organizations and political entities.
## Factual Background
The factual context of this litigation is centered on two parties: the plaintiffs, comprising G. B. Pachaiyappan (founder trustee) and Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai (a trust registered on 7 August 2023), and the defendants, Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (a political party) and its President, Mr. Vijay. The plaintiffs claimed original creation and consistent use of a particular flag, which had allegedly earned them goodwill as a mark identifying their charitable and social welfare activities. The trust secured registration of its flag as a trademark under Class 45 relating to social and personal services, effective from 28 November 2023. The flag, embodying specific colour combinations and artistic elements, was also asserted as qualifying for copyright protection under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act, 1957.
According to the plaintiffs, this flag, and the associated artistic and colour elements, were copied by the defendants when they adopted an allegedly similar flag for the political party. The plaintiffs emphasized that even before the trust’s formal constitution, the flag was in use, as shown by social media posts. Subsequent continuous usage reinforced their claim to prior user rights.
## Procedural Background
The plaintiffs filed three interim applications (O.A.Nos.713, 714, and 715 of 2025) in the main suit (C.S.(Comm.Div)No.178 of 2025), seeking interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from infringing their registered trademark, from passing off, and from infringing their copyright by using a flag and related devices alleged to be deceptively similar or substantially copied from the plaintiffs’ flag.
The core relief sought included restraining the defendants, their officers, staff, and representatives from (i) infringing the plaintiffs’ trademark by using identical or deceptively similar words/devices/flags, (ii) passing off goods or services as those of the plaintiffs through use of the impugned flag or connected artistic work, and (iii) infringing plaintiffs’ copyright in the flag, its colour scheme, and trade dress.
## Core Dispute
The essential dispute centered on the plaintiffs’ allegation that the defendants had substantially copied their flag, including its colour composition and design elements, and unlawfully used it in a manner constituting (1) copyright infringement, (2) trademark infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and (3) passing off. The plaintiffs argued that the impugned flag of the political party was not only visually and conceptually similar but also potentially misleading to the public, thereby diluting rights accrued to the trust through registration and prior use.
The defendants, on the other hand, contended that neither party was engaged in “trade” within the meaning of the Trade Marks Act, thus disqualifying the plaintiffs from asserting trademark rights. They further argued substantial differences between the flags and denied the existence of goodwill or reputation on the part of the plaintiffs sufficient to ground a passing off action.
## Discussion on Judgments – Complete Citations and Context
Multiple judicial precedents were cited by both parties to buttress their respective positions. The plaintiffs referenced several authorities:
1. *Kirithavar Vazhvurimai Iyakkam v. Indhiya Jananayaka Katchi*, 2020 SCC OnLine Mad 600 [(Kirithavar Iyakkam)] — cited for interpretation of trademark rights in the context of similar disputes involving flags, paragraphs 17-19 and 24 highlighted the criteria for assessing deceptive similarity and the scope of relief.
2. *Burge v. Haycock*, (2002) R.P.C. 28 — cited (pages 91, 94 and 95) for judicial reasoning on the requisite standard for substantial copying in copyright cases.
3. *Parle Products (P) Ltd. v. J.P. & Co., Mysore*, (1972) 1 SCC 618 — the Supreme Court’s observations in paragraph 9 were invoked to argue that courts should focus on the essential features of marks, even in composite cases.
4. *Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. v. Sudhir Bhatia & Ors.*, (2004) 3 SCC 90 — specifically paragraph 5, cited on the principle that interim injunctions should follow in clear cases of infringement or passing off.
5. *Colgate Palmolive Company & Anr. v. Anchor Health and Beauty Care Pvt. Ltd.*, 2003 SCC OnLine Del 1005 — paragraphs 59 and 60 referenced, relating to evaluation of essential features and likelihood of confusion.
6. *Societe des Produits Nestle S.A. v. Cadbury UK Limited*, (2022) EWHC 1671 (Chancery) — pages 108 and 110 relied upon for comparative analysis of artistic works and trademarks.
The defense, meanwhile, invoked:
1. The Division Bench stay of the judgment in *Kirithavar Iyakkam* to challenge its persuasive value.
2. [Supreme Court] *Pernod Ricard India Private Limited & Anr. v. Karanveer Singh Chhabra*, Civil Appeal No.10683 of 2025, judgment dated 14 August 2025, especially paragraph 31, advanced to argue the limitation of trademark rights where the connection to trade was absent.
3. *Dhariwal Industries Ltd. & Anr. v. M.S.S. Food Products*, (2005) 3 SCC 63 — cited with regard to assessing the quantum of goodwill and reputation required in cases of passing off, clarifying that scale of operation is not determinative but the evidence of reputation is decisive.
## Reasoning and Analysis of the Judge
Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy meticulously approached each relief by examining the material and legal contentions.
With respect to copyright infringement, the Court accepted, for the purpose of interim relief, that the plaintiffs’ flag qualified as original artistic work under Section 2(c) of the Copyright Act. However, upon visual and conceptual comparison, including central motifs and arrangement, the judge concluded that the defendants’ flag was not a substantial copy. While both shared a similar colour palette (maroon/red-yellow-maroon/configuration), the defendants’ flag incorporated “two dancing elephants,” an “oval device,” and a “Vaagai flower encircled by stars,” as opposed to “fish, leaping tiger, bow and arrow, and specified Tamil words” on the plaintiffs’ flag. The judge held that, even allowing for minor variations, there was no substantial copying of artistic elements justifying an interim injunction.
On trademark infringement, the Court observed, with reference to Section 2(1)(z)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, that the phrase “a connection in the course of trade” was critical and that the scope of ‘trade’ was not conclusively defined. At the interim stage, while refraining from a final finding on the plaintiffs’ entitlement to proprietary rights over the flag as a trademark, the judge provisionally accepted registration for the purposes of inquiry. Employing the test from *Parle Products*, the Court focused on the essential features of the composite mark and whether the similarity was sufficient to mislead an average consumer. Here again, the judge found that the plaintiffs did not possess a separate registration for the combination of colours and protected only the composite mark. The differences in design and the context in which the services were provided (charity versus political activity) further diluted the likelihood of consumer confusion or deception, leading the Court to deny interlocutory relief.
On passing off, the Court invoked the “classical trinity” test of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. Citing *Dhariwal Industries*, the judge acknowledged that scale of operations per se does not bar relief; however, available evidence revealed that the trust’s annual donations were minimal and the plaintiffs had failed to show reputation or goodwill attached to the flag. Further, the statement of financials and lack of specifics about beneficiaries undermined the claim of established goodwill. In the absence of concrete evidence on confusion or misrepresentation, no inferential basis existed to support passing off.
## Final Decision
The Hon’ble Court rejected all three interlocutory applications seeking injunctive relief against the defendants. It was held that no case of substantial copying constituting copyright infringement was made out. There was also an insufficient basis for finding trademark infringement or passing off, particularly given the lack of evidence demonstrating either consumer confusion or goodwill in the plaintiffs' flag. The Court clarified that all observations were prima facie and strictly confined to the determination of interim relief at the present stage.
## Law Settled in This Case
This decision clarifies several important aspects of Indian intellectual property law in relation to charitable and political entities. Firstly, the Court underscores that copyright protection in artistic works demands proof of substantial copying and not mere similarity in colour or broad themes. Secondly, it draws attention to the requirement of a “connection in the course of trade” for trademark rights, with ambiguity on whether not-for-profit entities or non-commercial organizations qualify as ‘traders’ for statutory protection. Lastly, the judgment reiterates the classical requirements for passing off actions: reputation/goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage — stressing the need for factual evidence, not merely registration or prior use.
## Case Details
Case Title: G B Pachaiyappan & Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai Vs. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam & Vijay
Date of Order: 18 August 2025
Case Number: O.A.Nos.713 to 715 of 2025 in C.S.(Comm.Div)No.178 of 2025
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:2005
Name of Court: High Court of Judicature at Madras
Name of Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy
***
Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.
Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi
***
### Suggested Titles for Law Journal Publication
1. Judicial Scrutiny of IP Rights in Flags: The G B Pachaiyappan v. Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam Decision
2. Trademark and Copyright Disputes in Non-Commercial Contexts: Lessons from the Madras High Court
3. Flags, IP and Goodwill: Analyzing the 2025 Madras High Court Ruling
4. The Limits of IP Protection for Charitable Trusts and Political Parties: A Case Study
5. Evaluating Passing Off and Infringement Claims in Social Sector Entities: Legal Perspectives from the Madras High Court
