Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. is engaged in the business of publishing a newspaper in Telugu called Eenadu. The company is in the business of publishing a newspaper, broadcasting, financing and developing a film city. Its pr

In the case of S. V Venugopal vs Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. and another SC Appeal No. 6314-15, 2001 . Supreme Court held that: Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. mark "Eenadu" had acquired extraordinary reputation and goodwill in the State of Andhra Pradesh. S.V Venugopal cannot be referred or termed as an honest concurrent user of the mark "Eenadu". S.V Venugopal has clearly wanted to ride on the reputation and goodwill of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd. Permitting S.V Venugopal to sell his product in Andhra Pradesh would amount to encouraging him to practice fraud on the consumers. S.V Venugopal's deliberate misrepresentation has the potentiality of creating serious confusion and deception for the public at large and the consumers here to be saved from such fraudulent and deceitful conduct. Permitting him to sell his product with the mark Eenadu would be encroaching on the reputation and goodwill of Ushodaya Enterprises Ltd and this would constitute invasion of proprietary rights vested with the company. As can be clearly seen from the judgment, the Court has clearly ruled on the basis of dilution of the trademark "Eenadu" registered to the respondent. A trademark is diluted when its uniqueness is lost owing to its unauthorised use in relation to products that are not identical or similar to the product of the trademark owner. In this context it must be noted that dilution was not pleaded by the respondent in the first place. Dilution was incorporated (which was previously dominated the likelihood of confusion test) into the Trade Mark Act, 1999 via Sections 11(4) and 29(4). The present case is clearly under the Trade Mark Act 1958 as the 1999 Act came into force with effect from 2003. This was also contended by the Respondents. Dilution of trademark essentially happens in relation to an extremely well-known mark. In relation to lesser known yet identifiable brands, the test of likelihood of confusion applies. The decision demonstrates that third parties will not be allowed to take undue advantage of trademarks that enjoy a high degree of goodwill and reputation in a particular region. The Supreme Court's ruling will enable the owner of such trademarks to prevent others from using similar marks for different of goods or services to obtain an unfair economic advantage.