The Delhi High Court has restrained the defendants and all persons acting on their behalf from issuing any groundless threats of legal proceedings for copyright infringement against TVS in relation to its manufacture, sale and commercial exploitation of engines, two-wheelers and three-wheelers on the strength of the two specified copyright registrations. The Court held that a cease-and-desist notice alleging copyright infringement can prima facie amount to a groundless threat under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957 where the notice contains only broad accusations, does not disclose how infringement is said to have occurred, does not identify the protectable expression allegedly copied, and does not provide any comparison of the rival works.
The Court also laid down that where the party issuing such threats has already failed in earlier proceedings concerning the same subject matter, and the material on record shows a continuing attempt to press vague claims against a commercial entity, the Court may step in to protect the plaintiff’s business reputation and goodwill through interim injunctive relief.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Jyoti Singh noted that the suit had been filed seeking a declaration that the impugned cease-and-desist notice amounted to groundless and unjustified threats under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. The Court took note of the background that Defendant No. 1 had been sending notices since 2018 on the basis of the two copyright registrations and had remained unsuccessful in establishing copyright violation before the relevant authorities and courts up to the Supreme Court.
The Court found prima facie merit in TVS’s argument that the impugned notice was vague. It observed that the notice merely made a bald assertion of copyright infringement and referred to statutory provisions and consequences of non-compliance, but did not explain how TVS had allegedly infringed the copyrights. The Court specifically noted that there was no comparison of the rival literary works and no particulars identifying the alleged act of copying.
The Court also recorded that the patent applications concerning the same subject matter had been abandoned after objections from the Patent Office, and viewed the fresh notice as part of a continuing attempt to harass the plaintiff. On that prima facie assessment, the Court held that the impugned notice constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. On the question of interim protection, the Court held that TVS had shown a substantial risk to its immense reputation and goodwill if such threats were allowed to continue. It therefore found that the balance of convenience was in favour of TVS and that irreparable loss and harm would be caused if interim relief was refused.
Briefly, TVS Motor Company Limited filed a commercial suit before the Delhi High Court complaining that the defendants, who are joint owners of two copyright registrations titled “Motion’s Fourth and Fifth Law” and “Motion’s Sixth Law”, had been issuing legal notices and cease-and-desist communications alleging that TVS’s engines, two-wheelers and three-wheelers infringed their claimed copyright. TVS’s case was that these registrations had been used by Defendant No. 1 since 2018 to threaten several vehicle manufacturers, including TVS, and to demand that they stop manufacturing products and enter into licence arrangements with royalty payments.
TVS also pointed out that the defendants had earlier tried multiple legal routes based on the same claims. A complaint made under the Copyright Act was ultimately dismissed by the IPAB as not maintainable. Thereafter, a writ petition challenging that outcome was dismissed by the Allahabad High Court, which held that a writ would not lie to restrain private entities in a copyright dispute, and even the Special Leave Petition against that decision was dismissed.
According to TVS, searches of the Patent Office records further showed that the defendants had also sought patent protection over the same subject matter, but those patent applications were abandoned after objections were raised in the First Examination Reports and no response was filed by the applicants. TVS relied on this history to argue that the defendants were trying to convert a functional invention into a copyrighted literary work and were continuing to issue threats despite repeated failure in earlier proceedings.
The immediate trigger for the suit was a fresh cease-and-desist notice dated 13.04.2026 issued by Defendant No. 1, calling upon TVS to stop manufacturing and commercially exploiting engines and motor vehicles allegedly using the defendants’ copyrighted works, and to pay past, present and future royalties with interest. TVS replied on June 09, 2026, denied the allegations, and treated the notice as a groundless threat of legal proceedings within the meaning of Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957.
