Bombay High Court upholds decision to restrain use of New Indian Express outside permitted territories | Mumbai News

The bench of Justice Dangre and Justice Deshpande, by a judgement pronounced on June 15, 2026, dismissed an interim application in the appeal filed by Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd against the November 2025 decision by the bench of Justice Chagla, which had passed the order on an interim application in a commercial intellectual property rights suit by plaintiff The Indian Express (P) Ltd.

Challenging the order, EPML filed an appeal before a two-judge bench.

Senior Advocate Darius Khambata, Advocates Arun Mohan, Abhinav Chandrachud and others instructed by Advocate Poorvi Kamani for The Indian Express (P) Ltd argued that it was the “absolute owner” of the registered titles and what was conferred on EPML was permitted use.

The lawyers submitted that the MoS which formed a part of the decree restricted the publication by EPML of the newspaper with the title New Indian Express to five states and specified UTs along with other restrictions. They also said the defendant “shall not directly or indirectly use or adopt any of the said titles in any way whatsoever or any title similar to or resembling thereto,” except for the permitted use in the MoS.

They submitted that “though the parties had perfectly understood the terms of settlement,” EPML attempted to hold an event in Mumbai called the New Indian Express-Mumbai Dialogues in September 2024, which was in breach of the settlement terms and the decree of the Madras High Court.

Senior Advocate Zal Andhyarujina, for EPML, argued that the settlement between the parties nowhere restrained it from promoting its publication outside the five states referred to in the MoS.

Andhyarujina claimed “acquiescence” by the plaintiff “when advertisements were issued by each of the parties in each other’s publications”.

However, the judgment observed, “The appellant being party to the MoS and supplemental MoS and the same being based on consent, definitely cannot claim ignorance of the rights that are conveyed on it and the rights that are continued by the Indian Express Group.”

“We, therefore, do not find a plea of acquiescence or delay to be sustainable and rather we have noted that when IPAB (Intellectual Property Appellate Board) called upon the appellant to scrupulously follow the restrictions without the slightest violation, it still continued with its ventures, on an assumption that it was entitled to do so,” the bench said.

The judgment said “Indian Express Group never acknowledged the conduct of the events for promotion though as far as advertisements are concerned, since there was a Joint Advertisement Agreement (JAA) which was executed by the parties recording consensual terms but even it was terminated with effect from January 20, 2011 and therefore, it cannot be definitely construed as open ended or permanent consent conferred on the appellant for pan-India use.”

The Indian Express is accepted as a well known mark of the Indian Express Group and “it always intended to protect its “well known mark” across classes of goods and services and across the whole of India,” the judgment observed. It was further observed that the event sought to be conducted by EPML with independent sponsors is a revenue generation event and offered sufficient justification for being objected by the owner of the title Indian Express.