IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. Chagla J.
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. - Applicant
Versus
Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. - Defendant
Interim Application (L) No.31555 of 2024, Comm IPR Suit (L) No.31230 of 2024
Decided On : 13-11-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. background of application and key settlements (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments regarding the scope of trademark rights (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. permitted usage conditions outlined in agreements (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. clarification on ownership of trademarks and rights (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. court's views on contractual interpretation regarding trademark (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. estoppel related to prior agreement interpretations (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. discussion on implications of consent decrees (Para 17 , 18 , 19) |
| 8. limitations arising from the consent decree (Para 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 9. effect of historical conducts on legal claims (Para 23 , 24 , 25) |
| 10. considerations on allegations of acquiescence (Para 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 11. judicial pronouncements on trademark actions (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 12. insights on procedural aspects of lawsuits (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 13. exposition of defendant's claims and evidence (Para 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 14. analysis of promotional activities and contracts (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 15. evaluation of the joint advertising arrangements (Para 41 , 42 , 43) |
| 16. challenges to the reliance on past agreements (Para 44 , 45 , 46) |
| 17. court's examination of acquiescence claims (Para 47 , 48 , 49) |
| 18. addressing ambiguities in consent agreements (Para 50 , 51 , 52) |
| 19. resolving conflicting interpretations of rights (Para 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 20. court determinations on registration disputes (Para 56 , 57 , 58) |
| 21. discussion on licensing and proprietary rights (Para 59 , 60 , 61) |
| 22. limits on challenges to the effectiveness of registration (Para 62 , 63 , 64) |
| 23. potential implications of ipab orders (Para 65 , 66 , 67) |
| 24. conclusions on the interim application merits (Para 68 , 69 , 70) |
| 25. final court orders and rationale behind decisions (Para 71) |
ORDER :
R.I. Chagla J.
1. By this Interim Application, the Applicant / Plaintiff has sought an Order of injunction restraining the Defendant from breaching, violating or acting contrary to the terms and conditions of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 5th February, 1995 recorded as a decree on 16th April, 1997 in C.S. Nos.1246 and 1247 of 1992 by the Madras High Court and the Supplemental Agreement dated 12th August, 2005 executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant. The Applicant has also sought an injunction restraining the Defendant from infringing and / or passing off or misrepresenting the Plaintiff’s registered trademarks, by using the Plaintiff’s trademarks or the title “The New Indian Express” for any purpose or event or program or business outside the specified states of Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Orissa and the Union Territories (UTs) of Pondicherry, Enam, Andaman Nicobar Islands and Lakshadweep islands as specified under the Memorandum of Settlement dated 5th February, 1995 recorded as a decree on 16th April, 1997 in C.S. Nos.1246 and 1247 of 1992 by the Madras High Court and the Supplemental Agreement dated 12th August, 2005 executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant or in any other manner likely to cause confusion, deception or mistake among the public.
2. The brief background of facts is as under:-
(i) Shri Ramnath Goenka was the founder of the Indian Express Group. All the newspapers were held by a holding company called Nariman Point Building Services & Trading Pvt. Ltd. (“NPBS”). Ramnath Goenka divided NPBS shareholding between his two grand sons Vivek Goenka, son of Krishna Khaitan, and Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, son of Radhadevi Sonthalia. NPBS shareholding comprised of 25,000 equity shares of which Vivek Goenka was given 15,680 shares (62.72%) and Manoj Kumar Sonthalia was given 9280 shares (37.12%). Additionally, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia’s mother Radhadevi Sonthalia held 40 shares (0.16%).
(ii) In 1990, Ramnath Goenka adopted Vivek Goenka as his son. The adoption deed was registered and eminent personalities were witnesses.
(iii) Sometime in 1990, Manoj Kumar Sonthalia had a disagreement with Ramnath Goenka over the NPBS shares given to him. Ramnath Goenka demanded that the shares
The plaintiff possesses exclusive rights to the title 'Indian Express', and any use of 'New Indian Express' by the defendant beyond specified territories constitutes trademark infringement.
The court confirmed that a written agreement prevails over claims of oral licenses in matters of trademark use, reiterating that determinable contracts cannot be enforced for specific performance und....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.