Dismissed

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. v. Express Publications Madurai Ltd. and Anr.

Bombay HC18 Jul 2014S/2502/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a suit regarding the trade mark 'I.E.', the court disposed of the matter based on an agreed order where Defendants discontinued the logo, withdrew their trademark application, and the Plaintiffs abandoned their claim for damages.

What did the court decide?

Suit disposed of in favor of Defendants based on agreed order; claim for damages rejected.

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. Vs Express… — Intellectual Property | Bombay HC (2014)

¶1

10-S-2502-10.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

SUIT NO. 2502 OF 2010

¶5

The Indian Express Ltd. & Anr.…Plaintiffs
Versus
Express Publications Madurai Ltd. & Anr.…Defendant

¶6

APPEARANCES

¶7

FORTHEPLAINTIFFS
Mr. Amol Joshi, with Ms. Poorvi Kamani,
for the Plaintiffs.
FORTHEDEFENDANTS
Mr. Rajiv Kumar, Senior Advocate, with
Mr. Diipak Chitnis, i/b Deepak
Chitnis Chiparikar & Co., for
Defendants.

¶8

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 18th July 2014

¶9

1.Although this suit is scheduled today for trial, and is so
listed, Mr. Kumar, learned senior counsel for the Defendants,
points out that consent minutes of the order were taken on 29th
April 2011 in Notice of Motion 2587 of 2010 in this very suit. That
order has held the field for the last three years. The Defendants
have complied with their obligations under Clause 3 of that order.

¶10

2.For the sake of clarity and convenience, the entirety of that
order is reproduced below:

¶11

1 of 3

¶12

10-S-2502-10.DOC

¶13

“The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
Plaintiffs and the Defendants have tendered Minutes of
the Order reflecting an agreement between the parties
that will govern the Notice of Motion. The Minutes are
taken on record and marked as ‘X’. Statements
contained in the Minutes are accepted. In terms of the
agreement between the parties as reflected in the
Minutes and since no other point has been pressed, the
Motion will stand disposed of in terms of the Minutes.”

¶14

Minutes of the Order

¶15

1.The learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf
of the Defendants, on instructions makes a statement
that the Defendants as part of the redesign policy have
discontinued the use of the trade mark “i.e.” on the
Mashead and as a logo (which is the subject matter of
the above suit) w.e.f. 18th April 2011 and have removed
the same from their website.

¶16

2.The Defendants state that they have no intention
of using the said mark “i.e.” (which is the subject matter
of the above suit) on their masthead or as a Logo, in
future.

¶17

3.The Defendants further state that their Application
No. 1845455 dated 30/07/2009 filed before the Registrar
of Trade Mark, Office of the Trade Mark Registry,
Chennai, for registration of their Masthead, which is
subject mater of the suit, as an associate Trade Mark will
consequently be withdrawn within two weeks. The
Defendants shall inform the Plaintiffs' Advocate in writing
of such withdrawal.

¶18

4.The Defendants shall exhaust the existing printed
stationary bearing the said logo “i.e.” on or before
31/08/2011 and states that they shall not use said logo
“i.e.” on any stationary after that date.

¶19

5.The Defendants' statements to this Hon'ble Court
are accepted.

¶20

6.The above Notice of Motion is accordingly
disposed of with liberty to the Plaintiff to apply.

¶21

7. No order as to cost.”

¶22

2 of 3

¶23

10-S-2502-10.DOC

¶24

3.Both sides have taken instructions. The Defendants have
obtained instructions from one Mr. Gopalan, Chief Manager
(Legal) of the Defendant No. 1. He has also affirmed the pleadings
before this Court. The Plaintiffs’ witness and director Ms. Vaidehi
Thakar is personally present in Court. The order dated 29th April
2011 shall continue as a final order in the suit itself except
paragraph 3. In place of paragraph 3, it is noted that the
Defendants’ application dated 30th July 2009 filed before the
Registrar of Trademarks, Chennai for registration of their
Masthead has been withdrawn.

¶25

4.In view of the above, Mr. Joshi does not press his claim for
damages under prayer (c) of the plaint. Prayer clauses (a) and (b) are
sufficiently covered by the terms of this order. The suit is disposed
of in these terms.

¶26

5. Decree to be drawn up accordingly.

¶27

6.The original documents of the Plaintiffs and the Defendants
shall be returned upon their substituting those with a compilation
of authenticated copies.

¶28

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶29

3 of 3

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. v. Express Publications Madurai Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Indian Express Ltd. and Anr. v. Express Publications Madurai Ltd. and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Hikal Limited Vs Leasing Iq (India) Pvt. Ltd.

Videocon International Ltd. Vs Org Gfk Marketing Service S Pvt.Ltd. and Anr.

Dena Bank Vs Maharashtra Minerals Corpn Ltd. and Ors.

Munira K Chitalwala Wd/of Kamruddin a Chitalawala AND3 Ors. Vs Mehefuza Chitalwala Wd/of Hussein a Chitalwala and 6 Ors.

Shri.Mohd. Salim Abdul Sattar Vs Saifee Burhani Upliftment Trust and 2 Ors.

Munira K Chitalwala Wd/of Kamruddin a Chitalawala AND3 Ors. Vs Mehefuza Chitalwala Wd/of Hussein a Chitalwala and 6 Ors.