Supreme Court Refuses To Interfere With HC Order Restraining 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' From Using 'Aaj Tak' Name

The Supreme Court on Wednesday refused to interfere with the Delhi High Court order restraining a Rajkot-based Gujarati newspaper from using the name “Saurashtra Aaj Tak” in a trademark dispute with TV Today Network, which operates the news channel “Aaj Tak”.

A Bench of Chief Justice Surya Kant, Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana, after hearing the parties, declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's July 30, 2026, order, which held TV Today Network to be the prior user of the “Aaj Tak” mark and restrained the newspaper from using “Saurashtra Aaj Tak”. 

However, the Court granted the newspaper three months' time to change the name “Saurashtra Aaj Tak”. 

Appearing for the Saurashtra Aaj Tak, its counsel argued that TV Today had not produced documentary evidence establishing its own use of the mark and had failed to place its alleged licence agreement on record.

He argued that the dispute was essentially one of passing off and that the question of honest or bona fide use could not be decided without first establishing TV Today's own prior use.

“In a passing off action, it's not a question of your honest user.”

Counsel submitted that TV Today's claim of use from 1995 was unsupported by adequate documentary evidence.

“If your Lordships kindly see the admitted list of documents, they've not even produced that licence agreement. How does the Hon'ble High Court come to the consideration, to the finding that they are the actual licensee?”

He pointed out that although TV Today's mark was registered in the name of Living Media, Living Media had not been impleaded as a party to the proceedings.

“Even TV Today's registered in the name of Living Media. But passing off, they have not shown even a single document of use.”

Counsel argued that TV Today should have produced evidence demonstrating actual use of the mark in its own name rather than relying upon documents relating to Living Media.

“Living Media is not included as a party, my Lords. Living Media, they could have impleaded Living Media.”

The Bench questioned whether the issue was being examined as a statutory infringement claim or as a common law passing-off action.

Counsel clarified that the newspaper was challenging the maintainability of the action and relying upon the provisions of the Trade Marks Act concerning common law rights.

He also referred to Section 52 of the Trade Marks Act concerning registered users, arguing that the provision did not assist TV Today's case because TV Today had not established itself as a registered user.

Counsel submitted that the passing off claim was ultimately based on common law and therefore TV Today still had to establish its own use of the mark.

He repeatedly referred to the admitted list of documents filed before the High Court.

“Their admitted list of documents, if your Lordships kindly see page 260, it is only one Board resolution, nothing more than that.”

Counsel argued that TV Today's evidence consisted essentially of documents showing the newspaper's use of the mark rather than documents demonstrating TV Today's own use.

“They are only producing my documents to show that I am using the mark. They ought to have shown documents which show their use, in their own name, not in the name of Living Media.”

He further submitted that the newspaper had continuously used the name for around 26 years and was only a regional player.

“I have been continuously using it for 26 years. I'm only a regional player.”

Counsel also sought to distinguish the marks on the basis of the manner in which “Aaj Tak” was used by the newspaper in Gujarati. He argued that the principal grievance remained TV Today's failure to produce evidence of its own use.

Counsel further submitted that TV Today had not asserted before the trial court or the High Court that it was a licensee and had raised the issue only subsequently.

The Bench, however, pointed out that Section 27 of the Trade Marks Act preserves the common law remedy of passing off.

“Section 27 reserves the right of a common law action in passing off.” Justice Bagchi said. 

The newspaper's counsel nevertheless maintained that even in a passing-off action, TV Today was required to produce evidence demonstrating its own use of the mark.

He again referred the Bench to page 260 of the admitted list of documents and submitted that there was no document showing use of “Aaj Tak” by TV Today itself.

Counsel also argued that the newspaper had not been aware of certain material until it came across the Delhi High Court judgment relied upon by TV Today and therefore could not have raised the objection earlier.

“I was never aware. I could have taken this objection only when I came to know about it. I came to know about it from the judgment of the Delhi High Court which they produced.”

Concluding, counsel for the newspaper argued that TV Today's passing-off action could not succeed without evidence establishing its own prior use of “Aaj Tak”, particularly when the documents relied upon were substantially in the name of Living Media and the alleged licence agreement had not been produced.

After hearing the submissions, the Supreme Court declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court's order and dismissed the challenge, leaving in place the restraint against the newspaper's use of “Saurashtra Aaj Tak”.