Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
R.I. Chagla, J
The Indian Express (P) Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd. – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. injunction sought based on terms of settlement. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. arguments on limited rights under the mos. (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. financial terms agreed in mos. (Para 8) |
| 4. ownership and control asserted by plaintiff. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 5. negative covenants restrict defendant's use. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 6. no waiver of rights as per consent decree. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26) |
| 7. counterarguments by defendant on acquiescence noted. (Para 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 8. defendant’s interpretation of the mos challenged. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 37) |
| 9. past conduct can inform contract intent. (Para 38 , 39 , 40) |
| 10. waiver of rights under a consent decree discussed. (Para 41 , 42 , 43 , 44) |
| 11. plaintiff did not take action leading to acquiescence claims. (Para 45 , 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 12. joint advertising agreement explained. (Para 49 , 50 , 51) |
| 13. defendant’s rights clarified under trademarks law. (Para 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57) |
| 14. mos as a corporate settlement highlighted. (Para 58 , 59 , 60) |
| 15. claims of exclusive rights and prior usage evaluated. (Para 61 , 62 , 63) |
| 16. ipab order's limitations discussed. (Para 64 , 65) |
| 17. defendant' |
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
