The Delhi High Court has held that a franchisee’s right to use a newspaper title and trademark ends with the termination of the underlying agreement, and continued publication may amount to passing off and cause irreparable harm to the proprietor’s reputation. The Court therefore granted interim protection to CMYK Printech Limited, restraining Ascendas Media Private Limited from publishing, printing, circulating or otherwise using the mark “The Pioneer” pending further proceedings.
The High Court prima facie found that the defendant’s right to use the newspaper title arose solely from the 2018 MoU and could not continue once the agreement stood terminated. Even though earlier trademark registrations had expired and renewal/restoration proceedings were pending, the Court recognized the plaintiff’s prima facie goodwill and reputation arising from continuous use of “The Pioneer” since 1865.
The Court observed that continued circulation of the newspaper under the same title could create a false impression that the publication remained associated with or approved by the plaintiff. Accordingly, the Court held that loss of goodwill and reputational harm resulting from publications over which the plaintiff exercises no editorial control constitutes irreparable injury warranting interim relief.
Briefly, dispute arose after CMYK Printech Limited, publisher of the well-known newspaper “The Pioneer”, filed a suit against Ascendas Media Private Limited alleging unauthorized use of the newspaper’s title and trademark after termination of a 2018 franchise arrangement. Under a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU), the defendant had been granted rights to publish the Hyderabad edition of The Pioneer and was required to pay a monthly fee and share advertising revenue.
According to the plaintiff, the defendant allegedly defaulted on its financial obligations, following which a termination notice dated 16 February 2026 was issued. The plaintiff claimed that despite termination of the MoU and withdrawal of all authorization, the defendant continued printing, publishing and circulating the Hyderabad edition under the “The Pioneer” mark. The plaintiff further alleged that even after a legal notice and assurances from the defendant that such publication would stop, the defendant continued to use the mark.
The plaintiff asserted that it and its predecessors have been publishing The Pioneer since 1865 and have acquired substantial goodwill and reputation in the mark through long-standing use. Although the earlier trademark registrations had expired and renewal/restoration proceedings were pending, the plaintiff contended that its common law rights and reputation in the mark remained intact.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Tejas Karia noted that the materials placed on record showed continuous use of the mark “The Pioneer” by the plaintiff and its predecessors since 1865. The Court observed that such long-standing use prima facie demonstrated the existence of goodwill and reputation associated with the mark, notwithstanding the fact that earlier registrations had expired and renewal applications were pending.
The Court further observed that the defendant’s right to use the mark originated solely from the MoU executed with the plaintiff. Therefore, the defendant’s entitlement to publish or circulate the newspaper under the mark was dependent upon the authorization granted under that agreement.
Examining copies of newspaper editions placed on record, the Court found prima facie material indicating that the defendant continued publishing The Pioneer even after the termination of the MoU and after the expiry of the six-month period contemplated under the agreement. The Court held that such continued use of the mark, in the absence of authorization from the plaintiff, could not be justified.
The Court also observed that continued publication under the same mark was likely to mislead readers, advertisers and other stakeholders into believing that the newspaper continued to be associated with or approved by the plaintiff. Such use had the potential to adversely affect the plaintiff’s goodwill and reputation, causing injury that could not be adequately compensated through monetary damages alone.
