New Indian Express Moves Supreme Court Against Bombay HC Injunction Restricting Use Of Its Name Outside Southern India

The New Indian Express has approached the Supreme Court challenging the Bombay High Court's order upholding an interim injunction restraining Express Publications (Madurai) Pvt. Ltd, publisher of the newspaper from using the “New Indian Express” name for events, programmes or business activities outside specified southern states and Union Territories.

The High Court On June 15, 2026 restrained it from using the "New Indian Express" name for events, programs, or business activities outside the five southern states and Union Territories specified in a 1995 Memorandum of Settlement.

A division bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and Manmohan after briefly hearing the parties today adjourned the matter till Diwali break on the request of senior advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi.

Appearing for the New Indian Express, Senior Advocate Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi referred to paragraph 47 of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) order and submitted that the findings recorded therein had a bearing on the present dispute.

He argued that the IPAB's declaration dated June 18, 2015 was binding on the parties and that the earlier proceedings before the Delhi High Court would in any event, have been governed by the findings recorded by the IPAB.

Singhvi further submitted that there was no restriction on the petitioner advertising or promoting its brand through events outside the southern states, particularly when the petitioner was entitled to sell its products in those states.

He argued that the petitioner was not seeking to sell its products outside the permitted geographical area but was only seeking to organise promotional events and advertise its brand elsewhere.

During the hearing, Singhvi submitted, "I have an arrangement that I will sell in the southern states. There is absolutely no bar on advertising by events elsewhere other than the South.”

He further contended, arguing, “I don't sell a single thing anywhere. That brand name is creating the trouble.”

The Bench questioned the petitioner's attempt to distinguish between the geographical restriction on sales and the use of the brand name for promotional activities outside the permitted territory.

The Court also referred to the concurrent findings and the detailed reasoning contained in the earlier orders, questioning what remained to be argued in the matter.

During the exchange, Justice Pardiwala questioned, “What is there to argue? There are concurrent findings, quite an exhaustive order.”

However when the Court was not inclined to interfere with the High Court's order, Singhvi sought permission to place additional documents on record and referred to the earlier suit instituted in 2011. He indicated that he wished to bring certain documents to the Court's attention.

The Bench accepted the requested and indicated that the matter could be taken up after the Diwali break.