The Bombay High Court has reinforced its position by upholding a restriction on The New Indian Express, preventing it from extending its brand operations outside the territories specified in its contractual agreement. This decision aligns with a previous judgment favoring The Indian Express, endorsing the rights established in [Express Publications Madurai v. The Indian Express].
Judicial Bench and Legal Proceedings
In a decisive move, the division bench, comprising Justices Bharati Dangre and Manjusha Deshpande, dismissed an appeal from Express Publications Madurai (EPM). The bench confirmed the findings of a single-judge bench that had earlier granted injunctive relief to The Indian Express. This judgment underscores the judiciary’s adherence to the terms set forth in the family settlement post the demise of Ramnath Goenka, the founder of the Indian Express Group.
Background of the Dispute
The legal contest stems from a family settlement arrangement following Ramnath Goenka’s passing in 1991. A Memorandum of Settlement was crafted in 1995, supplemented in 2005, which granted Vivek Goenka’s The Indian Express full ownership of the ‘Indian Express’ trademark. Conversely, EPM, headed by Manoj Kumar Sonthalia, received limited rights to use ‘The New Indian Express’ specifically for newspaper publishing in certain southern states and union territories.
Violation of Territorial Agreement
The conflict intensified when EPM organized an event, ‘The New Indian Express – Mumbai Dialogues,’ in September 2024, a location outside its permitted geographical scope. The single judge had previously determined that this event violated the consent decree binding both parties. The court’s evaluation highlighted that ‘New Indian Express’ is essentially a derivative of ‘Indian Express’ and cannot be utilized beyond the agreed boundaries.
Reaffirmation of Restricted Licence
The court dismissed EPM’s claims to independent proprietary rights over the trademark, emphasizing that the settlement only granted a restricted and conditional licence. The division bench echoed these sentiments, maintaining the prohibition on EPM from using the brand outside the southern region for any events, programs, or activities.
