Copyright infringement is available to the owner of the work, irrespective of registration

Case Title: S. Sudhakar Vs Leela Udhyog
Date of Order: 8 July 2025
Case Number: C.S. (Commercial) No. 52 of 2024
Neutral Citation: 2025:MHC:1634
Name of Court: Madras High Court
Presiding Judge: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy

Overview

The case of S. Sudhakar v. M/s. Leela Udhyog, adjudicated by the Madras High Court, involves a significant judicial examination of copyright infringement and passing off in commercial trademark disputes. Filed under C.S. (Commercial) No. 52 of 2024, the plaintiffs—S. Sudhakar, S. Dhinakar, and M/s. T.M. Karuppiah Nadar Sons—alleged that the defendants, M/s. Leela Udhyog and its partners, infringed their “TOWER” label used in the sale of dhall.

The plaintiffs sought summary judgment under Order XIII-A of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, to secure permanent injunctions and damages over the defendants’ use of the “Eiffel TOWER” label.

Factual Background

The plaintiffs, based in Chennai, Tamil Nadu, had been using the “TOWER” trademark since at least 1996. The label features a pictorial depiction of a tower, red “TOWER” text, and a yellow rectangle with the word “dhall” in multiple languages. It was developed between 2011 and 2020, with supporting evidence from email correspondence with designers.

Their business reported a turnover of ₹183.45 crore in 2022–23, supported by CA-certified sales records from 2014–15. The defendants, a firm based in Ahmedabad, Gujarat, allegedly used a deceptively similar “Eiffel TOWER” label. Their business was registered in 2020, and FSSAI licensing began in 2022. Plaintiffs argued the defendants copied essential elements of their label and sought ₹25 lakhs in damages, alleging bad faith as the defendants continued use despite agreeing to desist.

Procedural Background

The plaintiffs filed their suit under Section 55 of the Copyright Act, 1957, along with passing off claims under common law. Application A. No. 1920 of 2025 was filed for summary judgment. The defendants objected, challenging the court’s jurisdiction and claiming to operate only in Gujarat.

On 11 March 2024, interim injunctions were granted, and on 5 November 2024, the defendants confirmed discontinuation of the “Eiffel TOWER” label, making the injunctions permanent. Application for joinder of causes (A. No. 1214 of 2024) was allowed the same day. The judgment was delivered on 8 July 2025.

Core Dispute

The main question was whether the defendants’ “Eiffel TOWER” label infringed the plaintiffs’ copyright and passed off their brand. The plaintiffs argued that their original artistic label, created between 2011 and 2020, was protected under the Copyright Act and misrepresented by the defendants. They cited substantial turnover and earlier creation.

The defendants challenged jurisdiction, claimed their label was distinguishable, and referenced prior users of the “TOWER” mark like Liberty Oil Mills (1972) and Ajmer Food Industries (1995). They also claimed a 2023 copyright registration. Thus, the court had to examine copyright ownership, label similarity, elements of passing off, and whether summary judgment was appropriate.

Discussion on Judgments

The plaintiffs cited ITC Limited v. Ganesh Flour Mills (unreported) and Mohan Goldwater Breweries Pvt. Ltd. v. Khoday Distilleries Pvt. Ltd. (MANU/TN/0555/1976), emphasizing that copying essential features amounts to passing off and copyright infringement.

The defendants didn’t cite specific judgments but referenced opposition from other companies using the “TOWER” mark earlier. The court applied principles from Godaddy.com LLC v. Puravankara Projects Ltd. (2022 (91) PTC 440 (Mad)) to assess whether a trial was necessary or the case could be resolved summarily.

Reasoning and Analysis

Justice Senthilkumar Ramamoorthy held that under Section 62(2) of the Copyright Act, Chennai had jurisdiction. The court noted the defendants acquiesced by not opposing joinder and consenting to injunctions.

The court accepted the plaintiffs’ documentation of label creation as sufficient to establish ownership. It found the defendants’ label substantially copied key features and their later market entry (2020) invalidated their 2023 registration.

On passing off, the court applied the “classical trinity” of misrepresentation, reputation, and injury. Plaintiffs’ long-standing sales and branding were deemed sufficient to prove goodwill. The court rejected the defendants’ evidence as inadequate to establish prior use or legitimate defenses.

Using the Godaddy.com principles, the court found no real prospect for the defendants to succeed on the injunction claim but deferred the ₹25 lakh damages claim for trial, as it required oral evidence.

Final Decision

On 8 July 2025, the Madras High Court partially allowed A. No. 1920 of 2025, granting summary judgment for permanent injunctions (paragraph 36, clauses a–d of the plaint). The claim for damages was deferred. Plaintiffs were awarded costs, to be finalized after resolution of the damages claim.

Law Settled in This Case

This judgment affirms that copyright owners may enforce rights even without registration, provided ownership is proven. It clarifies that prima facie registration under Section 48 can be rebutted with earlier creation evidence. It also confirms the classical trinity test for passing off and recognizes trade dress in consumer confusion.

Finally, the decision promotes the use of Order XIII-A of the CPC in commercial matters, allowing courts to summarily dispose of cases lacking credible defenses while reserving complex issues—like damages—for trial.