This case addresses a trademark and passing-off dispute between T.V. Venogopal, the appellant, and Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd., the respondent. The appellant claimed to have used the word "Eenadu" for incense sticks (agarbattis), while the respondent, a well-known publisher of the Telugu newspaper "Eenadu," alleged infringement and passing off of its trademark. The Supreme Court's judgment explores issues of trademark distinctiveness, secondary meaning, and passing off.

Background: Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. is a renowned media company that publishes the "Eenadu" newspaper, a widely circulated Telugu daily, since 1974. The word "Eenadu" in Telugu means "today." The appellant, T.V. Venogopal, a manufacturer of incense sticks, adopted the term "Eenadu" in 1988 for his products. The respondent alleged that the appellant's use of "Eenadu" for incense sticks caused confusion among consumers and diluted the goodwill associated with its trademark. The appellant argued that "Eenadu" is a generic word commonly used in South Indian languages, and no single entity could claim exclusive rights over it.

Brief Facts of the Case: The appellant, T.V. Venogopal, used the mark "Ashika's Eenadu" for incense sticks since 1988.The respondent claimed exclusive rights over "Eenadu," asserting it had acquired secondary meaning associated with its newspaper. The respondent initiated legal proceedings for trademark infringement and passing off in the City Civil Court, Hyderabad. The trial court granted an injunction, which was modified by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh, limiting the restriction to the state of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant challenged the High Court's decision, arguing that "Eenadu" is a generic term and its use for incense sticks was bona fide.

Issues Involved in the Case

• Whether "Eenadu" is a generic term or has acquired secondary meaning as a trademark?
• Whether the appellant's use of "Eenadu" for incense sticks constitutes passing off?
• Whether the respondent's goodwill and reputation associated with "Eenadu" extend to unrelated goods like incense sticks?
• Whether the appellant acted dishonestly in adopting the term "Eenadu"?

Submissions of the Parties

Appellant (T.V. Venogopal):

• Argued that "Eenadu" is a generic term meaning "today" in Telugu and cannot be monopolized.
• Claimed that the term is commonly used by various businesses and entities, including banks and films.
• Asserted that there was no likelihood of confusion, as the respondent operates in the media industry while the appellant manufactures incense sticks.
• Stated that the adoption of "Eenadu" was honest and bona fide, with no intention to deceive consumers.

Respondent (Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.):

• Contended that "Eenadu" had acquired secondary meaning, signifying the respondent's newspaper and its associated goodwill.
• Argued that the appellant's use of the term diluted the distinctiveness of its trademark and caused consumer confusion.
• Highlighted that the appellant used a similar script and font, indicating an intention to deceive.
• Claimed that the reputation of "Eenadu" extended beyond newspapers to other goods and services.

Reasoning and Analysis by the Court

Generic vs. Secondary Meaning:

The court acknowledged that "Eenadu" is a common term in Telugu but held that it had acquired secondary meaning due to its extensive use and association with the respondent's newspaper. It emphasized that a descriptive term could attain trademark protection if it became synonymous with a specific source of goods or services.

Passing Off:

The court applied the classic trinity test for passing off: goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage. It found that the respondent had established significant goodwill associated with "Eenadu." The appellant's use of a similar mark and font was deemed likely to mislead consumers into believing a connection between the products.

Honesty of Adoption:

The court examined the appellant's conduct and concluded that the adoption of "Eenadu" was not bona fide. The appellant's registration of "Eenadu" for multiple classes of goods suggested an intent to capitalize on the respondent's reputation.

Scope of Protection:

The court noted that while the respondent primarily operated in the media industry, its trademark protection could extend to unrelated goods if goodwill and reputation were established. It cited precedents where well-known trademarks were protected across diverse product categories.

Decision:
The Supreme Court upheld the respondent's claim, affirming that "Eenadu" had acquired secondary meaning and was entitled to protection. It restrained the appellant from using the mark "Eenadu" for incense sticks and other goods.

Conclusion:
This case underscores the principle that a descriptive term can gain trademark protection if it acquires secondary meaning through extensive use and reputation. The judgment highlights the importance of goodwill and consumer perception in passing-off actions and reinforces the need for honest adoption of trademarks. The decision serves as a landmark in balancing trademark rights and the fair use of common terms.

Case Title: T.V. Venogopal vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. & Anr.
Date of Order: March 3, 2011
Case No.: Civil Appeal Nos. 6314-15 of 2001
Neutral Citation: 2011(45)PTC433(SC)
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Hon'ble Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Hon'ble Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan

Disclaimer: The information shared here is intended to serve the public interest by offering insights and perspectives. However, readers are advised to exercise their own discretion when interpreting and applying this information. The content herein is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, and presentation.

Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor - Patent and Trademark Attorney
Email: [email protected], Ph no: 9990389539