‘Clear Case of Passing Off’: Supreme Court Backs Aaj Tak in 20-Year Name Dispute

The Supreme Court on 7 October 2026 dismissed a plea by Gujarati newspaper Saurashtra Aaj Tak, leaving in place an order requiring it to change its name.

What Happened

The Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a plea filed by the Rajkot-based Gujarati newspaper Saurashtra Aaj Tak, challenging a Delhi High Court judgment that restrained it from continuing to use the name.

The dispute concerns the newspaper’s use of the words “Aaj Tak”, the name of the news channel operated by TV Today Network. The Delhi High Court had held that the title could create a misleading association with the established media brand and directed the newspaper to adopt a completely different name.

A bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant saw no reason to interfere with the Delhi High Court’s judgment of 30 July 2026. During the hearing, Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally described the matter as a “clear case of passing off”.

When counsel for the newspaper sought six months to implement the name change, CJI Surya Kant remarked that it could change its name to “Saurashtra Raat Din” the next day. The Court ultimately granted the newspaper three months from 7 October to comply with the High Court’s directions.

The Delhi High Court had specifically directed that the new name should be neither similar nor deceptively similar to the “Aaj Tak” mark.

Background & Context

The dispute goes back more than two decades.

TV Today Network came to know in 2002 that a Gujarati daily titled Saurashtra Aaj Tak was being published from Rajkot, Gujarat. It issued a legal notice in January 2003 and filed a passing-off suit in April that year.

In February 2012, a Delhi trial court partly decreed the suit. It found that “Aaj Tak” had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning and that use of the name by the newspaper was likely to cause confusion and injure TV Today’s goodwill.

The trial court nevertheless permitted the newspaper to continue using the title subject to a prominent disclaimer stating that it had no connection or association with TV Today’s Aaj Tak.

TV Today challenged the disclaimer-related part of that decree before the Delhi High Court in RFA 320/2012.

On 30 July 2026, Justice Mini Pushkarna set aside the trial court’s direction. The High Court held that goodwill, misrepresentation and likelihood of damage had been established and that a disclaimer was not an adequate remedy once passing off was made out.

The High Court also held that the addition of the regional prefix “Saurashtra” did not remove the likelihood of association with “Aaj Tak”. It further held that an intention to deceive is not essential in a passing-off action.

As reported by Bar & Bench, the High Court also noted that the newspaper had not established independent goodwill or bona fide adoption, and that a disclaimer could not cure deceptive similarity where well-known marks were involved.

The High Court therefore granted a permanent injunction requiring the newspaper to adopt a completely different name.

Key Details

• Court/Forum: Supreme Court of India, in an appeal against the Delhi High Court judgment in RFA 320/2012.
• Date: 7 October 2026 for the Supreme Court proceedings; 30 July 2026 for the Delhi High Court judgment.
• Parties: Saurashtra Aaj Tak, a Rajkot-based Gujarati newspaper, and TV Today Network, operator of the Aaj Tak news channel.
• Bench: The Supreme Court proceedings were before a bench headed by Chief Justice of India Surya Kant. Justice Joymalya Bagchi made the reported passing-off remark.
• Delhi High Court: Justice Mini Pushkarna delivered the 30 July 2026 judgment.
• Current Status: The Supreme Court plea was dismissed, and the newspaper has three months from 7 October 2026 to comply with the High Court’s directions.

Why It Matters

The significance of the case lies as much in its duration as in its subject.

What began with TV Today’s discovery of the Rajkot newspaper in 2002 has now travelled through a 2003 passing-off suit, a 2012 trial court decree, a 2026 Delhi High Court judgment and the Supreme Court’s refusal to interfere in October 2026.

The High Court’s reasoning illustrates a central feature of passing-off disputes involving established marks: the question is not simply whether two names are identical. The court considered goodwill, misrepresentation and the likelihood of damage, and concluded that the regional prefix “Saurashtra” did not sufficiently distinguish the newspaper from the established “Aaj Tak” identity.

The case also demonstrates the limits of disclaimers as a remedy. The trial court had permitted continued use of the name with a disclaimer, but the High Court concluded that once passing off was established, a disclaimer was not sufficient to address the problem.

For law students and trademark practitioners, the dispute provides a useful illustration of how the elements of goodwill, misrepresentation and damage operate together in a passing-off claim.

For media businesses, it also illustrates the legal risks that can arise when a regional publication adopts a name closely associated with an established national media brand.

At the same time, the Supreme Court’s action should be described precisely. The Court dismissed the plea and declined to interfere with the Delhi High Court judgment. Based on the reported proceedings and the material available, the decision should not be presented as a new Supreme Court precedent laying down a fresh rule of trademark law.

Reactions

Justice Joymalya Bagchi orally described the matter during the hearing as a “clear case of passing off”.

When the newspaper’s counsel sought six months to carry out the rebranding, CJI Surya Kant remarked that the newspaper could change its name to “Saurashtra Raat Din” the next day.

Both remarks were reported in coverage of the hearing and should be understood as oral observations during proceedings, rather than as findings contained in a written Supreme Court judgment.

Closing

The Supreme Court’s dismissal brings the latest chapter of the Saurashtra Aaj Tak dispute to a close after more than two decades of litigation. The newspaper now has three months to comply with the Delhi High Court’s direction to adopt a name that is neither similar nor deceptively similar to “Aaj Tak”.