LexaceLexace Ask the AI ›
⚖️ Ask the AI about your situation:🚗 Car Accident💼 Work / Job🏠 Housing / Eviction👪 Family / Divorce📋 Contract Dispute💰 Money Owed

T.V. VENUGOPAL versus USHODAYA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANR.

Citation: [2011] 4 S.C.R. 1000 · Decided: 03-03-2011 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DALVEER BHANDARI · Disposal: Disposed off

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 1000 
T.V. VENUGOPAL 
v. 
USHODAYA ENTERPRISES LTD. AND ANR. 
(Civil Appeal Nos.6314-6315 of 2001) 
MARCH 03, 2011 
[DALVEER BHANDARI AND K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN, 
JJ.] 
Intellectual Property - Passing-off in trade mark -
C Infringement of copyright - Appellant is sole proprietor of a 
Karnataka based firm carrying on manufacture of incense 
sticks (agarbathis), which adopted the trade mark 'Eenadu' and 
started selling its product in the State of Andhra Pradesh -
Respondent company, engaged in the business of publishing 
D a newspaper in Telugu entitled as 'Eenadu' and other 
businesses in the State of Andhra Pradesh, filed a suit for 
infringement of copyrights and passing-off trade mark -
Whether the appellant should be permitted to sell his product 
with the mark 'Eenadu' in the State of Andhra Pradesh - Held: 
E The respondent company's mark 'Eenadu' has acquired 
extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the State of Andhra 
Pradesh - 'Eenadu' means literally the products or services 
provided by the respondent company in the State of Andhra 
Pradesh - In this background, the appellant cannot be 
F referred or termed as an honest concurrent user of the mark 
'Eenadu' - Adoption of the words 'Eenadu' is ex facie 
fraudulent and ma/a fide from the very inception - By adopting 
the mark 'Eenadu' in the State of Andhra Pradesh, the 
appellant clearly wanted to ride on the reputation and goodwill 
G of the respondent company - Permitting the appellant to sell 
his product with the mark 'Eenadu' in the State of Andhra 
Pradesh would definitely create confusion in the minds of the 
consumers because the appellant is selling Agarbathies 
marked 'Eenadu' designed or calculated to lead purchasers 
H 
1000 
T.V. VENUGOPAL v. USHODAYA ENTERPRISES LTD.1001 
AND ANR. 
to believe that its product Agarbathies are in fact the products A 
of the respondent company - No one can be permitted to 
encroach upon the reputation and goodwill of other parties -
This approach is in consonance with protecting the proprietary 
rights of the respondent company. 
B 
The appellant is the sole proprietor of a Karnataka 
based firm carrying on manufacture of incense sticks 
(agarbathis), which adopted the trade mark 'Eenadu' and 
started selling its product in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 
The word 'Eenadu' means 'this land' in Kannada, 
C 
Malayalam and Tamil languages and 'today' in Telugu 
language. The respondent company, which was engaged 
in the business of publishing a newspaper in Telugu 
entitled as 'Eenadu' and other businesses in the State of 
Andhra Pradesh, filed a suit for infringement of copyrights 
0 
and passing-off trade mark. The respondent company 
contended that the use of the word 'Eenadu' by the 
appellant amounted to infringement of their copyright and 
passing-off in trade mark. The trial court partially decreed 
the suit of the respondent company by injuncting the 
E 
appellant from using the words 'Eenadu' in the State of 
Andhra Pradesh. The appellant was not injuncted from 
using the words 'Eenadu' in the entire country other than 
F 
in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The appellant filed appeal 
before the High Court. The respondent company also 
filed an appeal praying that the order of injunction to be 
made absolute and not be confined to the State of Andhra 
Pradesh. A Single Judge of the High Court dismissed the 
appeal filed by respondent company while allowing the 
appeal filed by the appellant. The respondent company 
G 
filed Letters Patent Appeal before the Division Bench of 
the High Court which was allowed, thereby decreeing the 
original suit filed by the respondents in 1999. Hence the 
present appeals. 
Disposing of the appeals, the C~urt 
H 
• 
1002 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2011] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
HELD: 1.1. The respondent company's mark 
'Eenadu' has acquired extra-ordinary reputation and 
goodwill in the State of Andhra Pradesh. 'Eenadu' 
newspaper and TV are extremely well known and almost 
household words in the State of Andhra Pradesh. The 
B word 'Eenadu' may be a descriptive word but has 
acquired a secondary or subsidiary meaning and is fully 
identified with the products and services provided by the 
respondent company. [Para 100] [1053-G-H; 1054-A] 
C 
1.2. The appellant is a Karnataka based company 
which started manufacturing its product in Bangalore in 
the name of 'Ashika' and started selling its product in the 
State of Andhra Pradesh in 1995. The appellant started 
using the n

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.