Delhi High Court Restrains Copyright Holders From Issuing Groundless Infringement Threats Against TVS

The Delhi High Court on Thursday restrained the holders of two copyright registrations from issuing any further groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings against TVS Motor Company over allegations that its engines, two-wheelers and three-wheelers used features covered by their registered literary works.

Justice Jyoti Singh passed the ad interim order in a suit filed by TVS seeking, among other reliefs, a declaration that a cease-and-desist notice issued by Ram Chandra Maurya and five others amounted to a groundless threat under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, 1957. Section 60 provides a remedy against groundless threats of legal proceedings.

Maurya and the five other defendants are joint owners of copyright registrations for works titled Motion's Fourth and Fifth Law and Motion's Sixth Law, both registered as "Literary Work."

According to TVS, the subject matter of the registrations relates to purported inventions concerning engine and mechanical/flow-control apparatus.

The plaint states that since 2018, Maurya has issued legal notices to several two-wheeler manufacturers, including TVS. The notices alleged that their engines, two-wheelers, and three-wheelers used features covered by the registered works. They called upon the manufacturers to stop manufacturing those products.

Maurya later approached the Copyright Authority seeking action against TVS and other manufacturers. The matter was subsequently transferred to the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB), which dismissed his complaint as not maintainable. Maurya challenged that decision before the Allahabad High Court. The writ petition was dismissed on February 6, 2025. His special leave petition was dismissed by the Supreme Court on August 4, 2025.

TVS told the court that despite those proceedings, Maurya sent it another cease-and-desist notice on April 13, 2026. The notice demanded that the company stop manufacturing and commercially exploiting engines and motor vehicles allegedly using the copyrighted works. It also called upon TVS to enter into a licensing arrangement and pay past, present and ongoing royalties with interest.

The company argued that the notice did not identify any protectable expression allegedly copied. It said the notice contained no particulars of infringement and was intended only to harass it.

TVS further submitted that its engines and motor vehicles were developed through its own independent research, design and engineering, and not by using any expression or element contained in the defendants' literary works.

After examining the notice, Justice Singh found that it merely asserted copyright infringement without explaining how TVS had allegedly copied the registered literary works.

"Prima facie, Plaintiff is right in pointing out that in the notice, there is only a bold averment that Plaintiff has infringed the copyright and reference is made to the relevant provision of the 1957 Act as also the consequences of non-compliance. There is not a whisper of how the Plaintiff has allegedly infringed the copyright and no comparison of the 'Literary Works' in question has been given."

The Court also referred to Maurya's earlier attempts to pursue the same claim before different forums.

"As the documents on record indicate, Defendant No.1 has been unsuccessful in proving his claim of copyright violation right from the Copyright Authority upto the Supreme Court. Patent applications filed for grant of patents for the same subject matter were abandoned on objections being raised by the Patent Office. In a desperate attempt to harass the Plaintiff, as urged by the learned Senior Counsel, Defendants have now sent the impugned cease-and-desist notice.", the court ruled,

Holding that the notice amounted to a groundless threat under Section 60 of the Copyright Act, the Court observed:

"In my prima facie view, the impugned notice dated 13.04.2026 constituted groundless threats of legal proceedings under Section 60 of 1957 Act and there is a substantial risk to the immense reputation and goodwill of the Plaintiff, owing to such threats. Balance of convenience lies in favour of the Plaintiff and if the interim relief sought is not granted, irreparable loss and harm shall be caused to the Plaintiff.", the court ruled.

Accordingly, the court restrained the defendants, until the next date of hearing, from issuing any groundless threats of copyright infringement proceedings against TVS.

The court also directed the defendants to give TVS at least seven days' prior written notice before initiating any legal proceedings, including a suit for copyright infringement or passing off, in relation to the two copyright registrations