JUDGMENT :

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.-

1. This order shall dispose of I.A. No. 6052/2005 and I.A. No. 7855/2005 preferred under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 and Order 39 Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, respectively.

2. The facts relevant for the present purposes are as follows. Both the Plaintiffs are duly incorporated companies having their registered office in New Delhi. It is averred that the second Plaintiff is the publisher of several reputed publications including 'India Today' and 'Readers Digest'. It is also engaged in the production of the TV news programmes from the year 1987. It is averred that since it had sufficient expertise in mass media and due to the popularity of its ventures, it decided to commence a news programme in Hindi to be telecast in Doordarshan, in 1995 under the name 'Aaj Tak'. It is submitted that due to its popularity, it decided to apply for registration of trademark in respect of the term 'Aaj Tak'. The second Plaintiff also acquired trademark registration in respect of Subha Aaj Tak, Khel Aaj Tak and Saptahik Aaj Tak under Class 9. In 2000, it launched a 24-hour news channel under the name 'Aaj Tak', which became an instant hit. The first Plaintiff promoted the second Plaintiff, to manage and administer the said channel, as a new corporate entity. The former also licensed the use of the word, logo and trademark in 'Aaj Tak' with respect to the news channel to the latter.

3. It is claimed that term 'Aaj Tak' is an arbitrary, unique combination of two words in the Hindi language, thereby, making the mark a highly distinctive one. Further, since the Plaintiffs have been using the said mark continuously since 1995, members of the public associate the mark only with them and the combination has become synonymous with them. The Plaintiffs also aver that considerable sums of money were spent for promotion of the said brand and have produced figures in relation to its growing revenue, the viewership of around 19. 4 million (as on April 2005), and say that the channel is highly popular. The Plaintiffs further aver that the numerous awards received by the channel over the years, has cemented its goodwill and reputation. Besides these, the Plaintiff also uses the domain name www.aajtak.com. where the said mark and logo are depicted, in order to provide news through the Internet. It is claimed that this Internet site too is highly popular and that it also owns the proprietary rights in other domain names such as www.aajtakfirm.in, www.aajtak.Co.in and www.aajtak.org.in among others. It is therefore, claimed that the said mark is a well-known mark within the meaning of Section 2(1)(zg) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereafter 'the Act').

4. The Plaintiffs claim that in 2005, they discovered that the Defendants were publishing a Hindi newspaper adopting the same word mark as that of theirs.

It is alleged that the Defendants have also registered an email address, namely, aajtakindia@rediffmail.com. which further proves the malafide intention of the Defendant. They further allege that the said newspaper is a weekly publication in Hindi and is being sold free of cost in Delhi and Noda. The mark of the Defendant is phonetically identical and visually similar to that of the Plaintiffs, and the Defendants use a similar style of representing their mark in various advertisements. These practices, the Plaintiffs claim, are intentionally carried out with a view to create confusion in the minds of the public and to unlawfully benefit from the Plaintiffs reputation and goodwill. The adoption of an identical mark, the Plaintiffs allege, is neither bona fide nor innocent, as it is an arbitrary coinage, thereby distinctive of the Plaintiffs. It is therefore, submitted that the acts of the Defendants, prima facie, not only amount to infringement u/s 29 of the Act but also passing off.

5. Mr. Siddharth Chopra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf the Plaintiffs contended that since a prima facie case of infringement and passing out