Delhi High Court Restrains Gujarati Newspaper From Using 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' In TV Today's Suit

The Delhi High Court has recently restrained a Gujarati newspaper from using the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak', holding that TV Today Network, which operates the news channel 'Aaj Tak,' is the prior user of the mark.

Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside a 2012 trial court judgment that had allowed the Rajkot-based newspaper to continue using the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak', provided it carried a disclaimer stating it had no connection with TV Today Network's 'Aaj Tak' channel.

Instead, the court granted permanent and mandatory injunctions, directing the newspaper to adopt a name that is not identical or deceptively similar to 'Aaj Tak'.

"When the elements of passing off have been established by the appellant/plaintiff, there was no occasion for the Trial Court to not have granted a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondent/defendant from using the mark 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak'," the court held.

TV Today Network filed the suit in 2003, seeking a permanent injunction to stop the newspaper from publishing under the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak'. It also sought a mandatory injunction directing the newspaper to adopt a title that was not similar or deceptively similar to 'Aaj Tak'.

While decreeing the suit in 2012, the trial court found that 'Aaj Tak' had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning. It also held that the use of 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' was likely to create confusion and injure TV Today Network's goodwill and reputation.

Even so, the trial court declined to completely restrain the newspaper from using the name. It reasoned that the newspaper may also have built goodwill over time and that its conduct did not appear to be "per se dishonest." It instead allowed continued use of the name with a disclaimer.

TV Today Network challenged only this part of the decree.

The high court found that the trial court's conclusion that the newspaper's use was not "per-se dishonest" was unsupported by the record. It noted that the newspaper neither pleaded a case of bona fide use nor led any evidence to show that its use of the words "Aaj Tak" was honest or bona fide.

"No evidence was led by the respondent/defendant to show that its use of the words 'Aaj Tak' was honest or bona fide in any manner," the court observed.

On the question of confusion, the court noted that both sides were engaged in the business of news dissemination. It said merely adding the prefix "Saurashtra" did not distinguish the newspaper's name from the well-known 'Aaj Tak' mark.

"The prefix 'Saurashtra' would not negate the association. If anything, it reinforces it by suggesting a regional arm of the same business," the court observed.

Finding that all three elements of a passing-off claim, goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage, stood established, the high court held that the disclaimer ordered by the trial court was not an adequate remedy.

It restrained the newspaper from using the mark 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' in any manner and directed it to adopt a new name that is not similar or deceptively similar to 'Aaj Tak'.