IP Case Law › Trade Marks › TV Today Network v. Saurashtra Aaj Tak & Anr.
Relevant Acts and provisions
Trade Marks Act, 1999
Section 27Section 28Section 34
Provisions considered: Sections 27, 28 and 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Brief facts
TV Today Network had been using the mark AajTak in relation to news services since 1995 and had built goodwill around the mark. In 2002 it learned that the Respondent was publishing a Gujarati newspaper under the name Saurashtra AajTak in the Saurashtra region of Gujarat. The Appellant objected and filed a suit in 2003 seeking to restrain use of the name. The Trial Court accepted that the use of AajTak created confusion that Saurashtra AajTak was associated with AajTak, but did not completely restrain the Respondent, allowing it to use the name with a disclaimer stating that Saurashtra AajTak has no connection or association with AajTak of TV Today Network. TV Today appealed, contending that a disclaimer was not sufficient to cure the confusion and possible damage to its goodwill. The Appellant's mark was a well-known trade mark, and this was conveyed to the Court on 2 May 2025.
Issues before the Court
1. Whether allowing continued use of a deceptively similar mark with a disclaimer was sufficient once damage and confusion to the goodwill of the Appellant had been established.
Court's findings
A disclaimer may not be enough to cure the deceptive use of a similar mark. Actual confusion or actual financial loss does not necessarily have to be proved in a passing-off case; a likelihood of confusion and resulting harm to goodwill can be enough.
Decision
The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Trial Court's direction permitting continued use of the mark with a disclaimer. The Court held that use of Saurashtra AajTak was deceptively similar to AajTak, permanently restrained the Respondent from using the name, and directed it to adopt a name that was not similar or deceptively similar to AajTak.
Key legal principle / ratio
In a passing-off action the focus is on protecting the goodwill of the earlier user from a later use that is likely to create confusion or an impression of association. Actual confusion or loss need not always be proved; likelihood of confusion and possible damage to goodwill may be sufficient.
Keywords
AajTak Deceptive Similarity Disclaimer Goodwill Likelihood of Confusion Misrepresentation Passing Off Prior User Well-known Trademark
Read the judgment
More Trade Marks judgments
Trade Marks
ADS Spirits Pvt. Ltd. v. The Registrar of Trade Marks
Section 9(1)(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 proscribes registration only where a mark is devoid of distinctive character, that is, incapable of distinguishing the goods or services of one person from those of another; it does not…
Absolute Grounds for RefusalArbitrary MarkDistinctivenessNon-speaking OrderTrade MarksAmrit Singh Mehta trading as Mehta Cosmetics v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks
Where a trade mark is registered after its normal renewal date, the proprietor is entitled to a six-month period from the actual date of registration to seek renewal. Further, a trade mark cannot be removed for non-renewal without…
Form O-2Form O-3Registration CertificateRemoval of TrademarkTrade MarksArun Kumar Gupta v. Registrar of Trade Marks
Issuance of notice in Form O-3 under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 is a mandatory pre-condition for removal of a trade mark from the Register on account of non-renewal. Mere expiry of registration or failure to file a…
Form O-3Mandatory NoticeRegistered ProprietorRemoval of Trademark