Supreme Court rejects ‘Saurashtra Aaj Tak’ plea, upholds restraint on Gujarati newspaper
The court held that TV Today Network, which operates the news channel Aaj Tak, is the prior user of the mark
by
Published: Oct 7, 2026 4:18 PM | 2 min read
Follow Us
- The Supreme Court dismissed a plea from Gujarati newspaper Saurashtra Aaj Tak, challenging a Delhi High Court order that prohibited its use of the name 'Saurashtra Aaj Tak'.
- The court ruled that TV Today Network, which operates the Aaj Tak news channel, is the prior user of the mark, having used it since 1995.
- The petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to support its claim, and the court noted that the mark had acquired a secondary association.
- The Supreme Court granted the newspaper three months to comply with the High Court's directions and suggested that they consider adopting a different name.
The Supreme Court has dismissed a plea filed by Gujarati newspaper Saurashtra Aaj Tak challenging a Delhi High Court order restraining it 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.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Surya Kant, Justice Joymalya Bagchi and Justice V Mahadevan rejected the petition and granted the newspaper three months to comply with the High Court’s directions.
During the hearing, Justice Bagchi observed that the India Today group had been using the mark since 1995 and that the mark had acquired a secondary association. He noted that the petitioner had not led evidence to establish its claim.
The petitioner’s counsel argued that the respondents had not produced a licence agreement and questioned how the High Court had concluded that TV Today had the relevant rights. The counsel also argued that the respondents had failed to produce documents demonstrating actual use of the mark.
Justice Bagchi, however, pointed out that the document showing use of the mark had been admitted and asked whether the petitioner had cross-examined the relevant witness.
The counsel further submitted that the entity actually using the mark was Living Media, which had not been impleaded in the proceedings, and claimed that the petitioner had been using the name for 26 years.
The Chief Justice, while dismissing the plea, told the petitioner, “It’s alright. You think of some other name,” and granted three months’ time to comply with the Delhi High Court’s directions.
Read more news about Print Media, TV Media, Advertising India, Digital Media, Marketing
For more updates, be socially connected with us onInstagram, LinkedIn, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube & Google News
