The court emphasized the importance of establishing the distinctiveness and secondary meaning of a trade mark, and the need for evidence to support such claims. It also highlighted the significance of the balance of convenience in granting interim injunctions.

P.K. Bhasin, J.

1. The two plaintiff Companies, out of whom plaintiff no.2 Company is the subsidiary and sister concern of plaintiff no.1 Company, have filed this suit against the defendants for infringement of their trade marks and passing off action.

2. The averments made by the plaintiffs in different paragraphs of their plaint and which only are relevant for deciding this application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 and in respect of which only arguments were advanced at the time of hearing of this application are re-produced below:

“3. That the Plaintiffs together with their affiliates are one of the major media corporations in India having enormous commercial presence in both print and electronic media. The Plaintiffs are engaged in diverse business activities ranging from printing and publishing of magazines, journals, periodicals, newspapers to broadcasting of news channels, infotainment programmes, conferences, seminars, music shows, music albums and running an FM radio channel and other related activities……………………………………

7. That Plaintiff No.1 herein is the owner and publisher of the immensely popular weekly news magazine "INDIA TODAY" which is considered as the number one news magazine in India continuously since its launch in 1975. The said News magazine is published in various regional languages as well. Furthermore "India Today" is also published in international edition in various countries like USA, Canada, UK, Doha etc.

8. That in addition to the above news magazine, Plaintiff No. 1 owns and publishes a business magazine under the trade mark "Business Today", a travel magazine under the trade mark "India Today Travel Plus", an architecture and design magazine under the trade mark "Design Today", and other magazines under the trade mark "Spice Today" and "Money Today" etc.

9. That the Plaintiff No.1 also publishes daily newspaper "MAIL TODAY" through its associate in collaboration with the prestigious Daily Mail of the United Kingdom. The Plaintiff No.1 used to run a daily afternoon newspaper under the trade mark "TODAY".

10. That Plaintiff No.1 also manufactures and markets music cassettes, CDs, VCDs and DVDs under the trade mark "MUSIC TODAY" and conducts music shows, concerts, live shows under the said trade mark.

12. That the Plaintiff No.1 conducts and incredibly famous yearly conference/ colloquiums/ seminar under the mark "INDIA TODAY CONCLAVE", wherein world leaders and eminent personalities converge and debate important and pressing issues on varied subjects.

14. That the Plaintiff No.1 under a license through the Plaintiff No.2 broadcasts immensely popular news channels namely, "AAJ TAK" (Till Today) in Hindi and "HEADLINES TODAY" in English besides few other media channels like "AAJ TAK TEZ" and "DILLI AAJ TAK".

15. That the Plaintiff No.1 is the registered proprietor of the trade mark "TODAY" and its variations not only in India but also in various foreign countries.

18. Following are the sales figures in INR for the last five years arising out of the sale of goods/services under the trade mark “TODAY” and its various variations for Plaintiff No.1:

S. No. Financial Year Sales (in INR)

1. 2005-06 2686471995

2. 2006-07 3015276455

3. 2007-08 3462051426

4. 2008-09 3752343409

5. 2009-10 3483415629

6. 2010-11 3757918453

7. 2011-12 3693832034

Sales figures of Plaintiff No.2 with respect to services rendered under the trademarks Aaj Tak and Headlines Today;

S. No. Financial Year Sales (in Rupees in Crores)

1. 2004-05 138.94

2. 2005-06 157.81

3. 2006-07 184.51

4. 2007-08 226.52

5. 2008-09 238.79

6. 2009-10 260.16

22. That the Plaintiffs have been using the said mark "TODAY" and its variants continuously since 1975 and have spent sufficient resources in terms of money, time and creativity to promote and publicise the said brands. It won't be out of place to mention here that the Plaintiffs' brand has earned the status of a "Well Known Trademark" and commands the highest level of protection ir