{"id":25174,"date":"2026-06-05T07:57:49","date_gmt":"2026-06-05T07:57:49","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=25174"},"modified":"2026-06-05T08:14:44","modified_gmt":"2026-06-05T08:14:44","slug":"eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<h2 id=\"h-introduction\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Introduction\"><\/span>Introduction<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The intersection of language, commerce, and intellectual property often gives rise to disputes of profound complexity. When a word drawn from everyday vernacular acquires such deep commercial resonance that it becomes synonymous with a business enterprise, its unauthorised use by another trader raises questions that go to the heart of fair competition and consumer protection.<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_84 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Introduction\" >Introduction<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Key_Takeaways\" >Key Takeaways<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Factual_and_Procedural_Background\" >Factual and Procedural Background<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Appellants_Business_and_Trademark_Adoption\" >Appellant&#8217;s Business and Trademark Adoption<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Respondent_Company_and_Business_Reputation\" >Respondent Company and Business Reputation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Cease_and_Desist_Notice_and_Litigation\" >Cease and Desist Notice and Litigation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Interim_Orders_and_Trial_Court_Decision\" >Interim Orders and Trial Court Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#High_Court_and_Supreme_Court_Proceedings\" >High Court and Supreme Court Proceedings<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Case_Timeline\" >Case Timeline<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Key_Parties_at_a_Glance\" >Key Parties at a Glance<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#The_Dispute\" >The Dispute<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Appellants_Core_Argument\" >Appellant&#8217;s Core Argument<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Procedural_and_Doctrinal_Challenges_Raised_by_the_Appellant\" >Procedural and Doctrinal Challenges Raised by the Appellant<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Respondent_Companys_Contentions\" >Respondent Company&#8217;s Contentions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Key_Contentions_at_a_Glance\" >Key Contentions at a Glance<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\" >Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_the_Nature_of_the_Mark_and_Secondary_Meaning\" >On the Nature of the Mark and Secondary Meaning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Reddaway_and_Co_v_Banham_and_Co_Principle\" >Reddaway and Co. v. Banham and Co. Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-19\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Halsburys_Laws_and_McCarthy_Principles\" >Halsbury&#8217;s Laws and McCarthy Principles<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-20\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_the_Classic_Elements_of_Passing_Off\" >On the Classic Elements of Passing Off<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-21\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Three-Part_Passing_Off_Test\" >Three-Part Passing Off Test<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-22\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Perry_v_Truefitt_Principle\" >Perry v. Truefitt Principle<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-23\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_Goodwill_Extending_Beyond_the_Direct_Field_of_Activity\" >On Goodwill Extending Beyond the Direct Field of Activity<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-24\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Laxmikant_V_Patel_v_Chetanbhai_Shah\" >Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-25\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Satyam_Infoway_Principle\" >Satyam Infoway Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-26\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Extended_Passing_Off_and_the_Champagne_Cases\" >Extended Passing Off and the Champagne Cases<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-27\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Harrods_Limited_v_R_Harrod_Limited\" >Harrods Limited v. R. Harrod Limited<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-28\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Daimler_Benz_Case\" >Daimler Benz Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-29\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Honda_Motors_Case\" >Honda Motors Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-30\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Mahindra_and_Mahindra_Case\" >Mahindra and Mahindra Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-31\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_Dishonest_Adoption\" >On Dishonest Adoption<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-32\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Factors_Showing_Dishonest_Intent\" >Factors Showing Dishonest Intent<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-33\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Midas_Hygiene_Principle\" >Midas Hygiene Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-34\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Madhubhan_Holiday_Inn_Case\" >Madhubhan Holiday Inn Case<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-35\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_Delay_and_Acquiescence\" >On Delay and Acquiescence<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-36\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Bengal_Waterproof_Principle\" >Bengal Waterproof Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-37\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Ramdev_Food_Products_Principle\" >Ramdev Food Products Principle<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-38\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Heinz_Italia_Principle\" >Heinz Italia Principle<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-39\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#On_Use_of_Wikipedia_as_Evidence\" >On Use of Wikipedia as Evidence<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-40\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#American_Decisions_on_Wikipedia_Evidence\" >American Decisions on Wikipedia Evidence<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-41\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Case\" >Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-42\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Final_Decision_of_the_Court\" >Final Decision of the Court<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-43\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Point_of_Law_Settled\" >Point of Law Settled<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-44\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Secondary_Meaning_and_Goodwill_in_a_Common_Word\" >Secondary Meaning and Goodwill in a Common Word<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-45\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Passing_Off_Across_Different_Business_Fields\" >Passing Off Across Different Business Fields<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-46\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Dishonest_Adoption_and_Injunctions\" >Dishonest Adoption and Injunctions<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-47\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Continuing_Tort_and_Limitation\" >Continuing Tort and Limitation<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-48\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Passing_Off_vs_Trademark_Dilution\" >Passing Off vs. Trademark Dilution<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-49\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Case-2\" >Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Case<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-50\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Case_Details\" >Case Details<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-51\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#Conclusion\" >Conclusion<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court of India&#8217;s judgement in <strong>T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Anr.<\/strong>, decided on <strong>3rd March 2011<\/strong>, is a landmark ruling that grapples with precisely these tensions. The case explores whether the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong>, a common word in the Telugu language meaning <em>&#8216;today&#8217;<\/em> or <em>&#8216;<\/em>this day&#8217;, could be monopolised by a newspaper house and whether its use by an incense stick manufacturer in a different state and a different product category amounted to the tort of passing off.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-related-links yoast-seo-related-links\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/what-really-amounts-to-theft-a-simple-understanding-of-section-303-of-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita\/\">What Really Amounts to Theft? A Simple Understanding of Section 303 of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/when-failure-is-not-fraud-criminalising-commercial-risk\/\">When Failure Is Not Fraud: Criminalising Commercial Risk<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/property-crimes-theft-vs-extortion-under-the-bharatiya-nyaya-sanhita-bns\/\">Understanding Property Crimes: Theft vs. Extortion under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS)<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/nri-husband-video-conferencing-divorce-reconciliation-ap-high-court\/\">NRI Husband Can\u2019t Skip Divorce Reconciliation Through Video Call: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rules<\/a><\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/additional-documents-in-commercial-suits-cannot-be-rejected-merely-because-they-could-have-been-obtained-earlier\/\">Additional Documents in Commercial Suits Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because They Could Have Been Obtained Earlier<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<div class=\"wp-block-yoast-seo-ai-summarize yoast-ai-summarize\"><h2><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Takeaways\"><\/span>Key Takeaways<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list yoast-ai-summarize-list\">\n<li>The Supreme Court&#8217;s ruling in T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. addresses the complexities of passing off and trademark goodwill.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The case questioned whether the common Telugu word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; could be monopolised when associated with a prominent newspaper.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The court affirmed that even descriptive words acquire secondary meaning and can indicate a specific trader due to extensive use.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dishonest adoption of a mark significantly influences the granting of injunctions and courts can protect goodwill even across unrelated fields.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The ruling establishes that mere delay in legal action does not defeat passing off claims, as they are considered continuing torts.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The judgement, delivered by the Supreme Court, affirmed the High Court&#8217;s ruling in favour of the respondent newspaper company, holding that the adoption of the mark <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> by the appellant was fraudulent and mala fide from inception, designed to ride upon the extraordinary goodwill and reputation that the respondent company had built over decades in the State of Andhra Pradesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The case is essentially about this: if a word has become so strongly associated with one business in the minds of the public in a particular region, can another trader use that same word even for an entirely different product? The Supreme Court&#8217;s answer, in the specific facts of this case, was an emphatic no.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-factual-and-procedural-background\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factual_and_Procedural_Background\"><\/span>Factual and Procedural Background<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellant-s-business-and-trademark-adoption\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Business_and_Trademark_Adoption\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Business and Trademark Adoption<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant, <strong>T.V. Venugopal<\/strong>, was the sole proprietor of a Bangalore-based firm called <strong>Ashika Incense Incorporated<\/strong>, engaged in the manufacture and sale of incense sticks commonly known as agarbathis. He started his business in the year <strong>1988<\/strong> and, according to his own account, adopted the trade mark <strong>&#8216;Ashika&#8217;s Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> for his product.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He claimed that the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> in the Kannada language means <em>&#8216;this land&#8217;,<\/em> and in Telugu it means &#8216;today&#8217;, and that he adopted it to signify the daily use of agarbathis, which are commonly used in daily religious worship.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant applied for registration of his trade mark label on <strong>10th February 1994<\/strong>, bearing <strong>Application No. 619177<\/strong>. He further made an application to the Registrar of Trade Marks for a certificate under the proviso to Section 45(1) of the Copyright Act, 1957, and obtained the certificate on <strong>7th March 1996<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An application for registration of copyright was subsequently made on <strong>14th March 1997<\/strong>. The appellant&#8217;s business grew substantially, and by the time of the appeal before the Supreme Court, his annual turnover from agarbathi sales was approximately <strong>Rupees Eleven Crores per annum<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-company-and-business-reputation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondent_Company_and_Business_Reputation\"><\/span>Respondent Company and Business Reputation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On the other side, the respondent, <strong>Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.<\/strong>, was an Andhra Pradesh-based media and business conglomerate. It was the publisher of the Telugu newspaper <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong>, one of the largest regional dailies in India, and was reportedly the largest-circulated newspaper in Andhra Pradesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent company also had interests in television broadcasting under the <strong>ETV<\/strong> brand, along with other business activities.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-cease-and-desist-notice-and-litigation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Cease_and_Desist_Notice_and_Litigation\"><\/span>Cease and Desist Notice and Litigation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <strong>1995<\/strong>, the respondent company served a cease and desist notice upon the appellant. The appellant replied on <strong>8th March 1995<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Despite this notice, the appellant continued to sell his agarbathis, and his sales reportedly grew from approximately <strong>Rupees Two Crores<\/strong> to close to <strong>Rupees Ten Crores<\/strong> in the years following the notice, largely from markets within the State of Andhra Pradesh.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <strong>1999<\/strong>, the respondent company filed a civil suit <strong>[O.S. No. 555 of 1999]<\/strong> in the Court of Second Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, seeking an injunction against the appellant for infringement of copyright and passing off of the trade mark <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-interim-orders-and-trial-court-decision\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Interim_Orders_and_Trial_Court_Decision\"><\/span>Interim Orders and Trial Court Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">On <strong>24th November 1999<\/strong>, the trial court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the appellant from using the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong>. This was confirmed on <strong>27th December 1999<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, on an appeal by the appellant, suspended the injunction but permitted the appellant to sell only finished stock worth <strong>Rupees One Crore<\/strong> and goods in the process of manufacture worth <strong>Rupees 78 Lakhs<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The trial court partially decreed the suit on <strong>24th July 2000<\/strong>, injuncting the appellant from using the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> only within the State of Andhra Pradesh, while permitting its use elsewhere in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-high-court-and-supreme-court-proceedings\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_and_Supreme_Court_Proceedings\"><\/span>High Court and Supreme Court Proceedings<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both parties appealed. A learned single judge of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, on <strong>29th December 2000<\/strong>, allowed the appellant&#8217;s appeal and dismissed the respondent&#8217;s appeal.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Aggrieved, the respondent company filed Letters Patent Appeals before a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which allowed the appeals on <strong>15th June 2001<\/strong>, fully decreeing the suit in favour of the respondent company.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant then approached the Supreme Court of India, leading to <strong>Civil Appeal Nos. 6314-15 of 2001<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-timeline\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Timeline\"><\/span>Case Timeline<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Year\/Date<\/th><th>Event<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>1988<\/td><td>The appellant commenced the agarbathi business and adopted the mark &#8220;Ashika&#8217;s Eenadu&#8221;.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>10 February 1994<\/td><td>Trademark application filed (Application No. 619177).<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1995<\/td><td>The respondent issued a cease and desist notice.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>8 March 1995<\/td><td>Appellant replied to the notice.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>7 March 1996<\/td><td>Certificate obtained under the Copyright Act.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>14 March 1997<\/td><td>Copyright registration application filed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>1999<\/td><td>Suit filed as O.S. No. 555 of 1999.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>24 November 1999<\/td><td>Ex-parte interim injunction granted.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>27 December 1999<\/td><td>Interim injunction confirmed.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>24 July 2000<\/td><td>The trial court partially decreed the suit.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>29 December 2000<\/td><td>The single judge allowed the appellant&#8217;s appeal.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>15 June 2001<\/td><td>The division bench allowed the respondent&#8217;s appeals.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3 March 2011<\/td><td>The Supreme Court delivered the final judgement.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-parties-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Parties_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Key Parties at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><strong>Appellant:<\/strong> T.V. Venugopal, Proprietor of Ashika Incense Incorporated.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Business:<\/strong> Manufacture and sale of agarbathis (incense sticks).<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Disputed Mark:<\/strong> &#8220;Ashika&#8217;s Eenadu&#8221;.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Respondent:<\/strong> Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Principal Brand:<\/strong> &#8220;Eenadu&#8221; Telugu newspaper.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Additional Business Interests:<\/strong> ETV television network and allied commercial ventures.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><strong>Core Legal Issue:<\/strong> Passing off and protection of goodwill associated with the mark &#8220;Eenadu&#8221;.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-the-dispute\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"The_Dispute\"><\/span>The Dispute<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the use of the word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; by the appellant on his agarbathi products amounted to passing off the goods of the respondent company, even though the two businesses were operating in entirely different product categories, one being a newspaper and media house and the other being a manufacturer of incense sticks.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-appellant-s-core-argument\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Appellants_Core_Argument\"><\/span>Appellant&#8217;s Core Argument<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant&#8217;s core argument was that &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; is a common Telugu word meaning &#8216;today&#8217; or &#8216;this day&#8217;, and that no trader can claim a monopoly over such a commonly understood, descriptive, and generic word.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He pointed to the widespread use of the word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; by numerous third parties across Andhra Pradesh and Karnataka for products like:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Turmeric powder<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Matchsticks<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Playing cards<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ayurvedic soaps<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dresses<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Chilly powder<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Washing powder<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Coffee<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Tobacco<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>A Telugu feature film released by UTV Productions<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He relied on these examples to demonstrate that the word had not acquired exclusivity in favour of any single trader.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He argued that the mark at best had secondary meaning only in relation to newspapers, not across all product categories, and certainly not in relation to agarbathis, for which the word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; was entirely arbitrary and had no descriptive significance whatsoever.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-procedural-and-doctrinal-challenges-raised-by-the-appellant\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_and_Doctrinal_Challenges_Raised_by_the_Appellant\"><\/span>Procedural and Doctrinal Challenges Raised by the Appellant<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant also raised important procedural and doctrinal challenges.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He contended that the suit was governed by the older Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and not the Trade Marks Act, 1999, since the litigation was already pending when the new Act came into force on 15th September 2003.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This was relevant because certain advanced doctrines such as:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Protection of well-known marks<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Dilution of trademarks<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">were statutorily recognised under the Trade Marks Act, 1999, but were not part of the statutory framework under the earlier law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">He further argued that the respondent company had been aware of the appellant&#8217;s use since at least February 1995 but filed the suit only in 1999, indicating either acquiescence or undue delay, which should disentitle it to relief.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-respondent-company-s-contentions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Respondent_Companys_Contentions\"><\/span>Respondent Company&#8217;s Contentions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent company countered that &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; had acquired an extraordinary secondary meaning and was so thoroughly associated with the respondent company&#8217;s business in the minds of the Telugu-speaking public of Andhra Pradesh that its use by anyone else for any product would:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Cause confusion as to source<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Ride upon the respondent&#8217;s goodwill<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Damage its reputation<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The respondent submitted that the group was collectively known as the &#8216;Eenadu Margadarshi Group&#8217;, that the ETV television channel was also part of the &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; family of enterprises, and that the word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; had become a household name in Andhra Pradesh in the widest possible sense.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-key-contentions-at-a-glance\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Contentions_at_a_Glance\"><\/span>Key Contentions at a Glance<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><thead><tr><th>Issue<\/th><th>Appellant&#8217;s Position<\/th><th>Respondent&#8217;s Position<\/th><\/tr><\/thead><tbody><tr><td>Nature of the Word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/td><td>Common Telugu word meaning &#8220;Today&#8221; or &#8220;This Day&#8221;<\/td><td>Has acquired strong secondary meaning identifying the respondent<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Exclusive Rights<\/td><td>No monopoly can exist over a generic word<\/td><td>Public associates the word exclusively with the respondent group<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Use by Third Parties<\/td><td>Widely used across numerous products and businesses<\/td><td>Despite third-party use, respondent enjoys substantial goodwill<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Product Category Difference<\/td><td>Newspapers and agarbathis are entirely unrelated goods<\/td><td>Use on any product may create association with respondent<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Applicable Law<\/td><td>Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, applies.<\/td><td>Protection should extend to the reputation acquired by the mark<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delay in Filing Suit<\/td><td>Knowledge since 1995, but suit filed in 1999<\/td><td>Continued protection of goodwill remains necessary<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-reasoning-and-analysis-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reasoning_and_Analysis_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Reasoning and Analysis of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court&#8217;s analysis drew upon a rich tapestry of Indian and English decisions on the law of passing off, secondary meaning, goodwill, and the scope of protection available to well-known marks. What follows is a discussion of how the court reasoned through the legal issues with reference to the authorities it considered.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-the-nature-of-the-mark-and-secondary-meaning\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_the_Nature_of_the_Mark_and_Secondary_Meaning\"><\/span>On the Nature of the Mark and Secondary Meaning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court acknowledged that &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; is a descriptive word in the Telugu language, meaning &#8216;today&#8217;. However, the court held that even a descriptive word can acquire a secondary meaning through long and extensive use, such that in the minds of consumers it becomes identified with a particular trader rather than with its literal meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-reddaway-and-co-v-banham-and-co-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Reddaway_and_Co_v_Banham_and_Co_Principle\"><\/span>Reddaway and Co. v. Banham and Co. Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This principle was drawn from the celebrated English case of <em>Reddaway and Co. and Anr. v. Banham and Co. and Anr., (1895-99) All ER 133<\/em>, where the House of Lords held that the term &#8216;camel hair&#8217; had acquired a secondary meaning in the trade to signify goods manufactured by the plaintiff, even though its primary meaning was merely descriptive of the material.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court in Venugopal applied this reasoning to hold that in the State of Andhra Pradesh, &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; had come to mean not merely &#8216;today&#8217; but specifically the products and services emanating from the respondent company&#8217;s house.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-halsbury-s-laws-and-mccarthy-principles\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Halsburys_Laws_and_McCarthy_Principles\"><\/span>Halsbury&#8217;s Laws and McCarthy Principles<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Halsbury&#8217;s Laws of England, Volume 48, 4th Edition, page 190.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>McCarthy on Trademarks and Unfair Competition, Volume 2, 3rd Edition, paragraph 12.5(2).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court relied on Halsbury&#8217;s statement that a wholly descriptive word can become so associated with one trader&#8217;s goods that its use by another amounts to misrepresentation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also noted McCarthy&#8217;s position that a user of a generic term must prove some false or confusing usage above and beyond the mere use of the generic name to obtain relief in a passing off claim.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-the-classic-elements-of-passing-off\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_the_Classic_Elements_of_Passing_Off\"><\/span>On the Classic Elements of Passing Off<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court extensively cited the three-part test for passing off as laid down by the House of Lords in <em>Reckitt and Colman Products Ltd v Borden Inc and Ors, (1990) 1 All ER 873<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-three-part-passing-off-test\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Three-Part_Passing_Off_Test\"><\/span>Three-Part Passing Off Test<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Element<\/th><th>Requirement<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>1<\/td><td>Goods have acquired a reputation or goodwill in the market.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>2<\/td><td>Defendant made a misrepresentation likely to mislead the public.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>3<\/td><td>Plaintiff suffered or is likely to suffer damage.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court held that all three elements were satisfied in the present case, particularly given the extraordinary reputation of &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; in Andhra Pradesh and the fact that the appellant had deliberately adopted the same word, same artistic script, same font, and same method of writing the name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-perry-v-truefitt-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Perry_v_Truefitt_Principle\"><\/span>Perry v. Truefitt Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also referred to <em>Perry v. Truefitt, (1842) 6 Beav. 66, 73<\/em>, where Lord Langdale summarised the law in one sentence:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<blockquote class=\"wp-block-quote is-layout-flow wp-block-quote-is-layout-flow\">\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">\u201cA man is not to sell his own goods under the pretence that they are the goods of another man.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This foundational principle was confirmed as the bedrock of the respondent&#8217;s case.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-goodwill-extending-beyond-the-direct-field-of-activity\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Goodwill_Extending_Beyond_the_Direct_Field_of_Activity\"><\/span>On Goodwill Extending Beyond the Direct Field of Activity<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">One of the most significant aspects of the case was the argument that the businesses of the appellant and the respondent were entirely different \u2014 one sold agarbathis and the other published newspapers and ran television channels.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant contended that there could be no passing off when there is no common field of activity. The court rejected this rigid interpretation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-laxmikant-v-patel-v-chetanbhai-shah\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Laxmikant_V_Patel_v_Chetanbhai_Shah\"><\/span>Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Laxmikant V. Patel v. Chetanbhai Shah and Anr., (2002) 3 SCC 65<\/em>, this Court held that the law does not permit any person to carry on business in such a way as to persuade customers into believing that the goods or services belong to someone else.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-satyam-infoway-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Satyam_Infoway_Principle\"><\/span>Satyam Infoway Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court referred to <em>Satyam Infoway Ltd. v. Sifynet Solutions (P) Limited, (2004) 6 SCC 145<\/em>, which recognised the importance of prior use, sales volume, and advertising in establishing reputation.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-extended-passing-off-and-the-champagne-cases\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Extended_Passing_Off_and_the_Champagne_Cases\"><\/span>Extended Passing Off and the Champagne Cases<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court relied upon <em>Taittinger and Ors. v. Allbev Limited and Ors., (1994) 4 All ER 75<\/em>, holding that erosion of distinctiveness itself constitutes damage to goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-harrods-limited-v-r-harrod-limited\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Harrods_Limited_v_R_Harrod_Limited\"><\/span>Harrods Limited v. R. Harrod Limited<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court cited <em>Harrods Limited v. R. Harrod Limited, (1924) RPC 74<\/em> to demonstrate that a famous business name enjoys protection even in unrelated fields.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-daimler-benz-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Daimler_Benz_Case\"><\/span>Daimler Benz Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court referred to <em>Daimler Benz Aktiegesellschaft and Anr. v. Hybo Hindustan, AIR 1994 Delhi 239<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Delhi High Court held that use of the name &#8216;Benz&#8217; for unrelated goods such as undergarments diluted a world-famous mark.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-honda-motors-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Honda_Motors_Case\"><\/span>Honda Motors Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">In <em>Honda Motors Company Limited v. Charanjit Singh and Ors., (2002) 101 DLT 359<\/em>, the use of the mark &#8216;Honda&#8217; for pressure cookers was restrained as it diluted the plaintiff&#8217;s goodwill.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-mahindra-and-mahindra-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Mahindra_and_Mahindra_Case\"><\/span>Mahindra and Mahindra Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also relied on <em>Mahendra and Mahendra Paper Mills Limited v. Mahindra and Mahindra Limited, (2002) 2 SCC 147<\/em>, where the name &#8216;Mahindra&#8217; had acquired distinctiveness and secondary meaning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-dishonest-adoption\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Dishonest_Adoption\"><\/span>On Dishonest Adoption<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">A critical finding of the Supreme Court was that the appellant&#8217;s adoption of the word &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; was not innocent.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-factors-showing-dishonest-intent\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Factors_Showing_Dishonest_Intent\"><\/span>Factors Showing Dishonest Intent<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>Use of the exact same artistic script and font.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Adoption of the same method of writing the mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Sales in Andhra Pradesh increased to nearly 90% of total business.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Trademark applications filed across 34 classes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-midas-hygiene-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Midas_Hygiene_Principle\"><\/span>Midas Hygiene Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court relied on <em>Midas Hygiene Industries (P) Ltd. and Anr. v. Sudhir Bhatia and Ors., (2004) 3 SCC 90<\/em>, which held that where adoption is dishonest, injunction should ordinarily follow.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-madhubhan-holiday-inn-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Madhubhan_Holiday_Inn_Case\"><\/span>Madhubhan Holiday Inn Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also discussed <em>Madhubhan Holiday Inn v. Holiday Inn Inc., (2002) 100 DLT 306 (DB)<\/em>, where adoption of the words &#8216;Holiday Inn&#8217; was held to be ex facie fraudulent and mala fide.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-delay-and-acquiescence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Delay_and_Acquiescence\"><\/span>On Delay and Acquiescence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The appellant argued that the respondent knew of the use since 1995 but filed suit only in 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-bengal-waterproof-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Bengal_Waterproof_Principle\"><\/span>Bengal Waterproof Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court relied on <em>M\/s Bengal Waterproof Limited v. Bombay Waterproof Manufacturing Company and Anr., (1997) 1 SCC 99<\/em> and held that passing off is a continuing tort.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>A fresh cause of action arises continuously.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, applies.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Delay alone does not defeat a passing-off claim.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-ramdev-food-products-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Ramdev_Food_Products_Principle\"><\/span>Ramdev Food Products Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court relied on <em>Ramdev Food Products (P) Limited v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Ors., (2006) 8 SCC 726<\/em> to clarify that acquiescence requires positive assent and not mere silence.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-heinz-italia-principle\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Heinz_Italia_Principle\"><\/span>Heinz Italia Principle<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also cited <em>Heinz Italia and Anr. v. Dabur India Limited, (2007) 6 SCC 1,<\/em> to reiterate that dishonest adoption ordinarily warrants an injunction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-on-use-of-wikipedia-as-evidence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"On_Use_of_Wikipedia_as_Evidence\"><\/span>On Use of Wikipedia as Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">An interesting evidentiary point arose in this case. The respondent company produced printouts from Wikipedia dated 13th April 2009 to show that &#8216;Eenadu&#8217; was a household name.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-american-decisions-on-wikipedia-evidence\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"American_Decisions_on_Wikipedia_Evidence\"><\/span>American Decisions on Wikipedia Evidence<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li><em>Taylor Mary Campbell v. Secretary of Health and Human Services, 69 Fed. Cl. 775 (2006)<\/em>.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li><em>Lamilem Badasa v. Michael B. Mukasey, 540 F.3d 909<\/em>.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Both decisions questioned the evidentiary value of Wikipedia.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">While the Supreme Court did not expressly rule on whether Wikipedia was admissible in Indian courts, it proceeded on the basis of the totality of facts and findings recorded by the courts below rather than on Wikipedia evidence alone.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-emerging-from-the-case\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Case\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Legal Principle<\/th><th>Position Taken by the Court<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Secondary Meaning<\/td><td>Descriptive marks can acquire distinctiveness through extensive use.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Requires goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Well-Known Marks<\/td><td>Protection extends beyond the original field of activity.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dishonest Adoption<\/td><td>Strong ground for granting injunctions.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delay<\/td><td>Does not defeat a continuing passing-off action.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Acquiescence<\/td><td>Requires positive consent, not mere silence.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dilution<\/td><td>Damage may arise through erosion of distinctiveness.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-final-decision-of-the-court\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Final_Decision_of_the_Court\"><\/span>Final Decision of the Court<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals filed by T.V. Venugopal and confirmed the judgement of the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court made the following principal findings and conclusions:<\/p>\n\n\n\n<ul class=\"wp-block-list\">\n<li>The respondent company&#8217;s mark <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> had acquired extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the State of Andhra Pradesh and was so thoroughly identified with the respondent company that it effectively meant, in popular understanding, the products and services of the respondent company.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The appellant could therefore not be termed an honest concurrent user of the mark.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The adoption of the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> by the appellant was <em>ex facie<\/em> fraudulent and mala fide from inception, designed to ride upon the respondent&#8217;s goodwill.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Permitting the appellant to continue would amount to the court placing a seal of approval on dishonest and illegal conduct.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>The appellant&#8217;s continued use of the mark <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> in Andhra Pradesh was calculated to make consumers believe that the agarbathis originated from the respondent company&#8217;s house, amounting to fraud on consumers and an invasion of the respondent&#8217;s proprietary rights.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Such use would also erode the extraordinary goodwill acquired by the respondent over decades.<\/li>\n\n\n\n<li>Honesty and fair play ought to be the foundation of trade and business.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Accordingly, the court fully upheld the injunction granted by the Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court restraining the appellant from using the word <strong>&#8216;Eenadu&#8217;<\/strong> for his agarbathi products.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-point-of-law-settled\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Point_of_Law_Settled\"><\/span>Point of Law Settled<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">This judgement settles and clarifies several important principles of intellectual property law and unfair competition law in India.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-secondary-meaning-and-goodwill-in-a-common-word\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Secondary_Meaning_and_Goodwill_in_a_Common_Word\"><\/span>Secondary Meaning and Goodwill in a Common Word<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Even a common, descriptive, or generic word can acquire such a powerful secondary meaning through long and extensive use in a particular territory that it becomes exclusively associated with one trader in the minds of the public in that region.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">When this happens, any other trader&#8217;s use of the same word, even for entirely different goods, can constitute the tort of passing off, provided the necessary elements of goodwill, misrepresentation, and damage are established.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-passing-off-across-different-business-fields\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Passing_Off_Across_Different_Business_Fields\"><\/span>Passing Off Across Different Business Fields<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court affirmed that a passing off action does not require the plaintiff and defendant to be operating in the same field of business.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The modern law of passing off is broad enough to protect a trader&#8217;s goodwill even against use in an unrelated product category, provided the plaintiff&#8217;s mark is sufficiently well known and the use by the defendant is such as to suggest a false association or origin.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-dishonest-adoption-and-injunctions\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Dishonest_Adoption_and_Injunctions\"><\/span>Dishonest Adoption and Injunctions<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court also clarified that dishonest adoption of a mark is a weighty factor that tilts the balance decisively in favour of granting an injunction and that mere delay in instituting legal proceedings does not defeat the plaintiff&#8217;s case where the wrong being committed is a continuing one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-continuing-tort-and-limitation\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Continuing_Tort_and_Limitation\"><\/span>Continuing Tort and Limitation<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court further confirmed that in cases of continuing torts like passing off, a fresh cause of action accrues at every moment of the continued wrong, and the limitation provisions of Section 22 of the Limitation Act, 1963, apply.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h3 id=\"h-passing-off-vs-trademark-dilution\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Passing_Off_vs_Trademark_Dilution\"><\/span>Passing Off vs. Trademark Dilution<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">Finally, the judgement draws a practical distinction between the law of passing off applicable under the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958, and the newer statutory concept of dilution under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The court made it clear that even under the old law, strong enough goodwill in a distinctive name justifies protection across product categories through the common law remedy of passing off, without needing to invoke the statutory dilution provisions of the new Act.<\/p>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-key-legal-principles-emerging-from-the-case-0\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Key_Legal_Principles_Emerging_from_the_Case-2\"><\/span>Key Legal Principles Emerging from the Case<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Legal Issue<\/th><th>Principle Established<\/th><\/tr><tr><td>Secondary Meaning<\/td><td>A common or descriptive word can acquire exclusive association with a trader through extensive use and reputation.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Passing Off<\/td><td>Passing off can succeed even when parties deal in different categories of goods.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Goodwill Protection<\/td><td>Well-known marks enjoy broader protection against false association.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Dishonest Adoption<\/td><td>Mala fide adoption strongly supports the grant of injunction.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Delay in Filing<\/td><td>Mere delay does not defeat a claim involving a continuing wrong.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Continuing Tort<\/td><td>A fresh cause of action arises continuously during the continuation of the wrongful act.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td>Trademark Dilution<\/td><td>Strong goodwill may be protected through passing off even without relying on dilution provisions.<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-case-details\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Case_Details\"><\/span>Case Details<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<figure class=\"wp-block-table\"><table class=\"has-fixed-layout\"><tbody><tr><th>Particulars<\/th><th>Details<\/th><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Title<\/strong><\/td><td>T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Anr.<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Date of Order<\/strong><\/td><td>3rd March 2011<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Case Number<\/strong><\/td><td>Civil Appeal Nos. 6314-15 of 2001<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Citation<\/strong><\/td><td>(2011) 4 SCC 85<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Court<\/strong><\/td><td>Supreme Court of India<\/td><\/tr><tr><td><strong>Coram<\/strong><\/td><td>Justice Dalveer Bhandari and Justice K.S. Panicker Radhakrishnan<\/td><\/tr><\/tbody><\/table><\/figure>\n\n\n\n<h2 id=\"h-conclusion\" class=\"wp-block-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Conclusion\"><\/span>Conclusion<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n\n\n\n<p class=\"wp-block-paragraph\">The decision in <strong>T.V. Venugopal v. Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and Anr.<\/strong> is a landmark ruling on passing off, trademark goodwill, secondary meaning, and protection of well-known marks. The Supreme Court emphasised that honesty and fair play are fundamental to commercial activities and reaffirmed that courts will protect established goodwill against dishonest attempts to exploit public association and reputation, even across unrelated product categories.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Introduction The intersection of language, commerce, and intellectual property often gives rise to disputes of profound complexity. When a word drawn from everyday vernacular acquires such deep commercial resonance that it becomes synonymous with a business enterprise, its unauthorised use by another trader raises questions that go to the heart of fair competition and consumer<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":25173,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[5149],"class_list":["post-25174","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","category-intellectual-property","tag-intellectual-property"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO Premium plugin v27.7 (Yoast SEO v27.7) - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-premium-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark? - Legal Service India - Articles<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"The Supreme Court&#039;s Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"The Supreme Court&#039;s Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Legal Service India - Articles\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"834\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"469\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@legalserviceind\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"17 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\"},\"headline\":\"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":3755,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-16.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Intellectual Property\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/\",\"name\":\"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark? - Legal Service India - Articles\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-16.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00\",\"description\":\"The Supreme Court's Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-16.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/05\\\/Capture-16.jpg\",\"width\":834,\"height\":469,\"caption\":\"Eenadu Trademark Case\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Intellectual Property > Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India - Law Articles\",\"description\":\"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Legal Service India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/06\\\/logo-circle-1.png\",\"width\":105,\"height\":95,\"caption\":\"Legal Service India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/legalservicesind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legalserviceind\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.youtube.com\\\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305\",\"name\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"url\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"contentUrl\":\"\\\/\\\/www.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm\",\"caption\":\"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN\"},\"description\":\"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalserviceindia.com\\\/Legal-Articles\\\/author\\\/ajayamitabhsuman\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark? - Legal Service India - Articles","description":"The Supreme Court's Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?","og_description":"The Supreme Court's Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/","og_site_name":"Legal Service India - Articles","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","article_published_time":"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00","article_modified_time":"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00","og_image":[{"width":834,"height":469,"url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legalserviceind","twitter_site":"@legalserviceind","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","Est. reading time":"17 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/"},"author":{"name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305"},"headline":"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?","datePublished":"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/"},"wordCount":3755,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","keywords":["Intellectual Property"],"articleSection":["Intellectual Property"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/","name":"Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark? - Legal Service India - Articles","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","datePublished":"2026-06-05T07:57:49+00:00","dateModified":"2026-06-05T08:14:44+00:00","description":"The Supreme Court's Eenadu ruling on trademark goodwill, passing off, secondary meaning, dishonest adoption and well-known marks.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","width":834,"height":469,"caption":"Eenadu Trademark Case"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/eenadu-trademark-case-passing-off-secondary-meaning-supreme-court-india\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Intellectual Property > Can a Common Word Become a Protected Trademark?"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","name":"Legal Service India - Law Articles","description":"Legal Service India - Law Article Directory is the oldest in India since 2000, with thousands of article written by lawyers, law Students and Scholars on all branches of law","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#organization","name":"Legal Service India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/06\/logo-circle-1.png","width":105,"height":95,"caption":"Legal Service India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/legalservicesind","https:\/\/x.com\/legalserviceind","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LegalServiceIndia-lsi"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/#\/schema\/person\/96ae33c2330691e5b3ccd88cf127a305","name":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","url":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","contentUrl":"\/\/www.gravatar.com\/avatar\/b894b0814afe1239db393e20da4b2e76?s=96&#038;r=g&#038;d=mm","caption":"ADVOCATE AJAY AMITABH SUMAN"},"description":"Professional and Literary Profile Mr. Ajay Amitabh Suman, Advocate, is an alumnus of the Campus Law Centre, University of Delhi, with over 20 years of experience in IP litigation before the Delhi High Court. He currently serves as a Patent and Trademark Attorney at United &amp; United, a leading intellectual property law firm. Deeply committed to legal scholarship, he has authored more than 900 articles on intellectual property law, published on major platforms including Legal Service India, Bar &amp; Bench, Live Law, SCC Online Blog, Legal Desire, SpicyIP, among others. Beyond his legal practice, he is also an accomplished writer and poet, with over 1,500 literary works and more than 20 books published in Hindi and English. His journey reflects a unique blend of legal advocacy and creative expression, inspired by a passion for justice, knowledge, and reform.","url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/author\/ajayamitabhsuman\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/05\/Capture-16.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25174","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=25174"}],"version-history":[{"count":3,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25174\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":25578,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/25174\/revisions\/25578"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/25173"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=25174"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=25174"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=25174"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}