The burden of establishing distinctiveness for common and descriptive words used as trademarks is heavy, and the court is reluctant to grant exclusive rights to such words without sufficient evidence of acquired distinctiveness.

S. RAVINDRA BHAT, J.

1. In this appeal, the dissatisfied appellants (hereafter “plaintiffs”) complain against the denial of temporary injunction in their suit, which claims trademark infringement and passing off, by the respondents (hereafter "defendants") and seek injunctive relief.

2. The plaintiffs in their suit allege that they and their affiliates are major media corporations in India with significant commercial presence in the print and electronic media. They are engaged in varied business activities, such as printing and publishing magazines, journals, periodicals, newspapers, operating news broadcasting channels, infotainment programs, FM radio channels, organizing conferences, seminars, music shows, production of music albums etc. The first plaintiff is owner and publisher of the weekly news magazine "INDIA TODAY" which has a significant holding in its sphere of activity, since 1975. It is published in various regional languages in India while its international editions are published in USA, Canada, UK, Doha etc. The first plaintiff also owns and publishes a business magazine under the trade mark "Business Today", a travel magazine "India Today Travel Plus", an architecture and design magazine "Design Today", and other magazines under the trade mark "Spice Today" and "Money Today" etc. Each of these is a trademark. The said plaintiff also publishes a daily newspaper "MAIL TODAY" through its associate in collaboration with the prestigious Daily Mail of the United Kingdom. It used to publish and circulate a daily afternoon newspaper under the trade mark "TODAY". The first plaintiff manufactures and markets music cassettes, CDs, VCDs and DVDs under the trade mark "MUSIC TODAY" and conducts music shows, concerts, live shows etc. under the said trade mark. The suit contends that the first plaintiff conducts an "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."

3. The suit avers that the first Plaintiff, under a license through the second Plaintiff broadcasts 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". It is alleged that the first plaintiff is the registered proprietor of the trade mark "TODAY" and its variations not only in India but also in various foreign countries. The plaint lists out growing sales figures arising from sale of goods and services under the trade mark "TODAY" and its variations: 2005-06 (Rs. 268.647crores); 2006-07 (Rs. 301.527 crores); 2007-08 (Rs. 346.205 crores); 2008-09 (Rs. 375.234 crores); 2009-10 (Rs. 348.341 crores); 2010-11 (Rs. 375.791 crores) and 2011-12 (Rs. 369.383 crores). Likewise, the sales figures of the second plaintiff for services under the trademarks "Aaj Tak" and "Headlines Today" are shown to be: 2004-05- Rs. 138.94 crores; 2005-06, Rs. 157.81 crores; 2006-07- Rs. 184.51 crores; 2007-08, Rs. 226.52 crores; 2008-09- Rs. 238.79 crores; and 2009-10- Rs. 260.16 crores.

4. It is claimed that the plaintiffs are using said mark "TODAY" and its variants continuously since 1975 and have spent sufficient resources i.e money, time and creativity to promote and publicize these brands. The Plaintiffs' brand has earned the status of a "Well Known Trademark" and commands the highest level of protection irrespective of the class that they have been applied for or used in. It is also urged that the goodwill accrued to the said mark extends beyond the actual use of the mark; it is so widely used that the brand has become a household name. It is claimed that the trademark "TODAY" has assumed and acquired a secondary meaning owing to the Plaintiff and their affiliate’s long, continuous and honest use; it is associated with the Plaintiffs and its affiliates only.

5. The suit claims that in late October 2012, durin