TV Today Network Vs Saurashtra Aaj Tak

## News Write-Up: High Court Restrains Regional Publisher from Using 'Aaj Tak' Mark

**Case Title**: TV Today Network Vs Saurashtra Aaj Tak and Anr.

**Date of Judgment**: 30.07.2026

**Case No.**: RFA 320/2012 & CM APPL. 80300/2025

**Neutral Citation**: 2026:DHC:6103

**Court Name**: High Court of Delhi

**Name of Hon'ble Judge**: Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

### Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant, TV Today Network, runs the nationally prominent 24-hour Hindi news channel 'Aaj Tak', which initially launched as a program in 1995 and became a dedicated channel in 2000. In December 2002, the appellant discovered that the respondents had launched a Gujarati regional daily newspaper titled 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' from Rajkot, Gujarat. After a legal notice yielded no response, the appellant filed a suit in 2003 seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions against the use of 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak'. The trial court, vide judgment dated February 29, 2012, recorded ex-parte proceedings against the defendants and recognized that 'Aaj Tak' had achieved secondary meaning and goodwill. However, instead of issuing a complete restraint order, the trial court permitted the respondents to continue using 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' subject to publishing a prominent disclaimer denying any association with the appellant. Aggrieved by the refusal to grant a full permanent injunction, the appellant preferred the present appeal before the High Court of Delhi.

### Dispute before Court

Whether the trial court erred in allowing the respondent to continue using the deceptively similar mark 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' with a disclaimer, despite concluding that the appellant held established goodwill in 'Aaj Tak' and that the respondent's mark was likely to cause consumer confusion.

### Reasoning of Judge

The High Court observed that the trial court's finding regarding the respondent having developed independent goodwill or acting without dishonesty was legally unsustainable, as the respondent had been proceeded ex-parte and failed to adduce any evidence to support such claims. Merely adding a geographical prefix like 'Saurashtra' to a distinctive mark does not dispel the likelihood of deception or association, especially when both parties operate in the allied field of news dissemination. The Court reaffirmed that in passing off actions, proving actual damage is not required; demonstrating a distinct likelihood of confusion and consequential damage to goodwill is sufficient. Furthermore, approval from the Registrar of Newspapers for India (RNI) under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 does not grant immunity against trade mark passing off claims, given the distinct objectives of the two statutes. Consequently, a mere disclaimer is an inadequate remedy when the adoption of a dominant mark creates clear source confusion.

### Decision

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's direction permitting the use of the mark with a disclaimer. The Court issued an absolute permanent injunction restraining the respondents from publishing, printing, or circulating any newspaper, magazine, or promotional material under the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' or any mark confusingly similar to 'Aaj Tak'.

### One Important Legal Principle Held in the Case

A mere disclaimer or addition of a geographical prefix cannot cure passing off when an essential and dominant mark of a prior user is adopted for cognate services, and administrative registration under publication laws offers no defense against trademark rights.

[Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation ]

## Safeguarding Trademark Identity in Media: High Court Rules Against Misleading Name Adaptations

### Introduction

Maintaining brand identity and distinctiveness is vital for media organizations, where public trust and reputation directly influence readership and viewership. When rival entities adopt similar titles, it often leads to confusion among the public regarding the origin of the news services. The High Court of Delhi recently addressed this critical aspect of intellectual property law in an appeal challenging a trial court decision that allowed a regional entity to use a prominent media brand's name accompanied by a disclaimer. The judgment reinforces the legal protections available to prior users of distinctive trade names and clarifies the limits of using disclaimers as a remedy in passing off disputes.

### Factual and Procedural Background

The appellant company forms part of a major media group established in 1975. It commenced using a specific mark in 1995 for a news segment broadcast on the national network Doordarshan. In December 2000, it expanded operations by launching a dedicated 24-hour Hindi news channel under the same mark, gaining massive national reach and public recognition.

In December 2002, the appellant discovered that a regional Gujarati newspaper was being published and circulated in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat under a title that incorporated the appellant's news channel mark prefixed with the regional name. The appellant issued a formal legal notice in January 2003 requesting the cessation of the name. Receiving no response, the appellant instituted a civil suit in April 2003 seeking permanent and mandatory injunctions to restrain the publication under the contested title.

During the suit's pendency, the proceedings were transferred to a district court due to jurisdictional adjustments. The defendants eventually stopped participating in the proceedings and were proceeded ex-parte in August 2008. Meanwhile, trademark registration certificates were issued in 2005 for the relevant mark under classes covering telecommunications and entertainment/education services, with retrospective effect from October 2003.

In February 2012, the trial court delivered its judgment. It held that the appellant's mark had acquired secondary meaning and distinctiveness through continuous use. It also noted that the defendant's publication was likely to cause confusion among readers and advertisers. However, the trial court refrained from granting an absolute permanent injunction, reasoning that the defendant might have established local goodwill and that its adoption was not per-se dishonest. Instead, it granted a mandatory injunction requiring the defendant to publish a prominent disclaimer alongside its title, explicitly stating the lack of association with the appellant. Dissatisfied with the refusal to issue a full prohibition, the appellant approached the High Court in appeal.

### Dispute Before the Court

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether the trial court erred in permitting the continuous use of a deceptively similar mark coupled with a disclaimer, despite rendering factual findings that the appellant possessed established goodwill and that the respondent's mark was likely to cause confusion.

The appellant argued that having satisfied all three requirements of passing off—goodwill, misrepresentation, and likelihood of damage—it was entitled to an absolute injunction restraining the use of its mark. It contended that adding a geographic prefix like "Saurashtra" did not alter the dominant identity of the mark and that a disclaimer was ineffective in preventing consumer deception.

On the other hand, the respondent argued that the suit was unmaintainable due to issues of locus standi and non-joinder of the parent entity holding the registration. Substantively, the respondent claimed protection under prior local user concepts, arguing that its title had received regulatory approval from the Press Registrar under publication laws, operated in a regional language, was confined strictly to print in a specific geography, and was adopted in good faith to denote daily local reporting.

### Reasoning and Analysis of the Court

The High Court conducted a comprehensive analysis of the common law remedy of passing off and its interaction with statutory trademark protections.

Addressing preliminary technical objections, the Court confirmed that an action for passing off is rooted in common law rights arising from prior adoption and goodwill generation, distinct from statutory infringement claims. Prior use grants rights superior to subsequent adoption, and a prior user can maintain a passing off action irrespective of whether it holds formal registration in its own name or through an associate entity. Moreover, procedural objections regarding maintainability or locus standi must be raised in initial trial pleadings, and an ex-parte party that failed to file cross-appeals cannot challenge favorable trial findings for the first time at the appellate stage.

On the merits of passing off, the Court assessed the classical parameters: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. The Court reaffirmed that while individual ordinary words in a mark may be descriptive, their combination used continuously in a specific domain can acquire secondary meaning and exclusive distinctiveness. The unrebutted evidence established that the news channel mark had become a household brand nationally prior to the respondent's local adoption.

Regarding misrepresentation and confusion, the Court observed that both parties operate in the news dissemination sector. Television broadcasting and print publishing represent allied and cognate activities within media. Merely prefixing a geographical identifier to a well-known mark does not eliminate confusion; rather, it often leads the public to infer that the regional publication is an official local arm or affiliate of the national broadcasting network. The language difference or regional restriction does not insulate against deception when the underlying brand carries national reach.

The Court further held that the trial court's assumption regarding the respondent's good faith or independent goodwill lacked evidentiary basis. Because the respondent failed to present evidence during trial, an adverse inference applied, rendering any speculative finding of honest concurrent use legally improper.

Addressing the defense based on title registration under publication laws, the Court clarified the statutory distinction. Approval granted by administrative authorities under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 serves regulatory filing purposes and does not override trademark rights or provide a valid defense against passing off actions.

Finally, evaluating the adequacy of relief, the Court held that a disclaimer is an inappropriate and insufficient remedy when the primary mark has been appropriated for similar services. Allowing an entity to trade on another's goodwill while relying on fine-print disclaimers fails to protect the public from initial interest confusion and undermines the protection guaranteed to prior brand owners.

### Final Decision of the Court

The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the trial court's decision to the extent that it permitted the respondent to use the disputed mark with a disclaimer. The Court issued a decree of permanent injunction restraining the respondents, their agents, and representatives from printing, publishing, circulating, or advertising any newspaper, magazine, or periodical under the contested title or any other mark confusingly or deceptively similar to the appellant's registered mark.

### Point of Law Settled

The judgment reinforces the legal rule that where a party establishes prior continuous use, brand reputation, and likelihood of confusion in an action for passing off involving allied fields, the Court must issue a complete injunctive relief. Imposing disclaimers or relying on minor structural additions like geographical prefixes is insufficient to mitigate source confusion or safeguard established goodwill. Additionally, the ruling reiterates that administrative approvals under print media regulations do not defeat common law or statutory trademark rights.

Title of the Case: TV Today Network vs Saurashtra Aaj Tak and Anr.

Date of Judgment: 30.07.2026

Case Number: RFA 320/2012 & CM APPL. 80300/2025

Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:6103

Name of Court: High Court of Delhi

Name of Hon'ble Judge: Ms. Justice Mini Pushkarna

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor [Patent and Trademark Attorney], High Court of Delhi

Disclaimer: Readers are advised not to treat this as a substitute for legal advice as it may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation .

### Headnote of the Judgment

TV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak and Anr., High Court of Delhi, RFA 320/2012. The appellant, operator of the nationwide news channel 'Aaj Tak', appealed against a trial court decree which allowed the respondents to publish a daily Gujarati newspaper titled 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak' subject to a mandatory disclaimer. The High Court held that 'Aaj Tak' had achieved secondary meaning and prior goodwill in news dissemination. Incorporating the dominant mark with a geographical prefix for cognate news services creates a strong likelihood of public confusion. Relying on unevidenced claims of bona fide use or administrative approval under the Press and Registration of Books Act, 1867 offers no defense in passing off actions. The Court set aside the disclaimer direction and granted an absolute permanent injunction restraining the respondents from using the contested mark.

### Suggested SEO Tags

TV Today Network, Saurashtra Aaj Tak, Delhi High Court Judgment, Trademark Infringement, Passing Off Law, Media Trademark Disputes, Intellectual Property India, Brand Name Protection, Mini Pushkarna Judge, Indian Trademark Law, Secondary Meaning Law, Geographical Prefix Trademark, PRB Act vs Trademark Act, Cognate Services Law, Prior User Rights, Common Law Remedies, Injunctive Relief Law, Disclaimer Ineffective Trademark, Media House Disputes, News Channel Name Infringement, Unfair Competition Law, RNI Approval Defense, Deceptive Similarity Test, AdvocateAjayAmitabhSuman, IPAdjutor

### Suggested SEO Titles

 1. Delhi High Court Restrains Saurashtra Aaj Tak in Trademark Dispute with TV Today Network

 2. Why Disclaimers Cannot Save Deceptive Trademarks: Delhi High Court Analysis

 3. TV Today Network vs Saurashtra Aaj Tak: Delhi HC Orders Absolute Injunction

 4. Trademark Rights vs RNI Registration: Delhi High Court Clarifies Legal Hierarchy

 5. Protection of News Brand Names: Delhi High Court Rules on 'Aaj Tak' Passing Off Suit

 6. Adding Geographical Prefixes to Established Trademarks: Legal Implications Explained

 7. Common Law Remedies in Media Trademarks: Analysis of Delhi High Court Ruling

 8. TV Today Network Secures Full Injunction Against Gujarati Newspaper Title

 9. Understanding Secondary Meaning and Prior User Protections in Indian Media Law

 10. Delhi HC Overturns Trial Court Ruling on Disclaimers in Trademark Passing Off Cases