Trust moves Madras High Court against party flag of Vijay’s TVK

The Madras High Court on Thursday (July 17, 2025) ordered notices to Tamilaga Vettri Kazhagam (TVK) and its president C. Joseph Vijay in a civil suit filed against him for having used a “deceptively” similar colour combination in his party flag as that of Thondai Mandala Saandror Dharma Paribalana Sabai, a registered trust based in Mylapore, Chennai.

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy called for the response of the actor-turned-politician within two weeks after the plaintiff’s counsel Ramesh Ganapathy contended the trust had registered its emblem as a trademark by making an application in November 2023. He said, the mark was registered and a certificate was issued to the trust on June 1, 2024.

However, in August 2024, the plaintiff trust was shocked to come across the TVK’s flag being “deceptively” similar to its registered trademark. It claimed to have issued a legal notice to Mr. Vijay on May 13, 2025, and received a response on May 31, 2025, stating the TVK was not involved in business or commercial activities and hence, a trademark dispute would not arise.

“The defendants do not even understand that the trademark and copyright protections are available to service providers as well,” the plaintiff trust, represented by its trustee G.B. Pachaiyappan, said. He contended both the trust as well as the TVK were involved in social service and therefore, the use of “deceptively” similar identification marks would cause confusion in the minds of the people.

The plaintiff trust also stated it had been using its trademark on its promotional materials and that it runs a Tamil monthly magazine titled Saandror Kural with the mark. Further, the trust claimed to have a strong social media presence by running a YouTube channel too, which had gathered a considerable amount of goodwill and reputation for the trademark.]

The trust urged the court to grant a permanent injunction restraining the TVK from using the latter’s current flag and also sought a similar interim injunction. Stating that the larger question as to whether this dispute would fall under the trademark dispute would have to be examined in detail, the judge said, that issue could be gone into only after the defendants file their response.