{"id":7040042,"date":"2026-08-17T00:44:21","date_gmt":"2026-08-17T00:44:21","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/peraltafinancing.com\/uncategorized\/analysing-the-christian-louboutin-verdict-of-the-delhi-high-court\/"},"modified":"2026-08-17T00:44:21","modified_gmt":"2026-08-17T00:44:21","slug":"analysing-the-christian-louboutin-verdict-of-the-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042","title":{"rendered":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court"},"content":{"rendered":"<p> <br \/>\n<\/p>\n<div id=\"post-body-7683696020612691749\" itemprop=\"description articleBody\">\n<div dir=\"ltr\" style=\"text-align: left;\" trbidi=\"on\">\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">On December 12, 2017, the Delhi High Court delivered a<br \/>\ncrisp 21-paragraph <i>ex parte<\/i> decree<br \/>\nagainst the defendants in a suit for infringement of the \u201cRed Sole\u201d trademark<br \/>\ninstituted by the global luxury retail brand Christian Louboutin. Apart from<br \/>\ngranting injunctive reliefs to the brand owner\/plaintiff against the defendants<br \/>\nand declaring the Red Sole trademark well-known, the Court also awarded damages<br \/>\nto the plaintiff to the tune of INR 1,63,000, and INR 8,63,790 as costs. While<br \/>\nthe judgement warrants analysis with respect to the Court\u2019s reasons for declaring<br \/>\nthe Red Sole mark well-known, my primary interest is in understanding the<br \/>\nCourt\u2019s approach to and basis for grant of damages and costs, an aspect of IP<br \/>\nlitigation I had <\/span><a href=\"https:\/\/thedemandingmistress.blogspot.in\/2016\/04\/evolving-culture-of-damages.html\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">discussed in brief<\/span><\/a><span lang=\"EN-IN\"> almost two years ago.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">The discussion on principles that govern award of damages<br \/>\nbegins at Paragraph 18 of the judgement, which extracts, for the most part,<br \/>\nportions of a Division Bench\u2019s judgement in <\/span><i><span style=\"background: white;\"><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/64885934\/\">Hindustan Unilever Limited Vs.<br \/>\nReckitt Benckiser India Limited<\/a> <\/span><\/i><span style=\"background: white;\">(2014). The DB judgement in turn discussed the principles<br \/>\nlaid down in two English decisions, namely <i>Rookes<br \/>\nv. Barnard<\/i>, [1964] 1 All ER 367<\/span> and <i>Cassell &amp; Co. Ltd. v. Broome<\/i>, 1972 AC 1027. Both these English<br \/>\ndecisions, in effect, (a) clarified the object of award of exemplary\/aggravated\/punitive<br \/>\ndamages, (b) identified the circumstances for and condition precedents to grant<br \/>\nof such damages so as to avoid <i>ad hocism<\/i>,<br \/>\nand (b) diluted the vindictive\/retributory character of such damages by<br \/>\nunderscoring the fact that ultimately the award benefited a private party. <\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"background: white; font-family: inherit;\">While <i>Rookes <\/i>identified<i>\u00a0<\/i>the categories of cases where award of exemplary damages was justified, the<br \/>\nspecifics of the considerations and their nuances were educatively articulated in<br \/>\n<i>Cassell<\/i>. For instance, <i>Cassell <\/i>cautioned that in order to<br \/>\nestablish a case for exemplary damages, it wasn&#8217;t sufficient for the<br \/>\nplaintiff to merely peg his case under the categories identified in <i>Rookes<\/i>. Further, the first order of<br \/>\nbusiness in assessing damages was to compute actual or compensatory damages and<br \/>\nthen ask oneself whether such damages were adequate compensation to the<br \/>\nplaintiff in light of the defendant\u2019s conduct and the benefit it had accrued to<br \/>\nthe latter. Only when this question was answered in the negative, it would be<br \/>\nappropriate for the Court to award exemplary damages. <\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"background: white; font-family: inherit;\">Importantly, in assessing the adequacy of the exemplary<br \/>\ndamages and its intended deterrent character, the total sum i.e. damages<br \/>\ninclusive of actual and exemplary components, must be considered, and not the<br \/>\nexemplary component alone. In other words, computation of exemplary damages may<br \/>\nbe construed as an exercise in rounding off the final sum to an extent that the<br \/>\nfigure has a punitive punch to it, as opposed to a mere pinch. Clearly, these<br \/>\nprinciples are meant to remind Courts of the nature and purpose of exemplary<br \/>\ndamages and temper any misplaced sense of retribution. In this regard, the<br \/>\nclarification that damages remain a civil remedy, and not criminal, even when<br \/>\nexemplary, is profound. <\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">Notwithstanding the fact that the <\/span><i><span style=\"background: white;\">Hindustan<br \/>\nUnilever <\/span><\/i><span style=\"background: white;\">judgement was delivered<br \/>\nby the DB in the backdrop of a suit for commercial disparagement, the stellar<br \/>\nprinciples distilled by it, with approval, from the two English decisions, lend<br \/>\nthemselves to general application to civil suits. Further, the DB\u2019s express<br \/>\ndisapproval of the approach adopted in <i><a href=\"https:\/\/indiankanoon.org\/doc\/1152738\/\">Times Incorporated v. Lokesh<br \/>\nSrivastava<\/a> <\/i>makes <i>Hindustan<br \/>\nUnilever <\/i>the new standard to be observed in award of exemplary damages,<br \/>\nwhich is perhaps a banal observation as on date given that the judgement was<br \/>\ndelivered in 2014. One just hopes that the spirit of rigour and caution which<br \/>\ntypify this standard reflect in every suit where damages are awarded.<\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<p>\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">In the facts of the Christian Louboutin case, the<br \/>\nCourt did not award exemplary damages. Perhaps, the facts of the case did not<br \/>\nwarrant such an award, and to precisely drive home this point to the Plaintiff the Court chose to extract <i>Hindustan Unilever<\/i>. That being said, the computation of actual damages by the Court is based on quite a few assumptions, whose basis is unclear.\u00a0<\/span>Extracted below is Paragraph 19 of the judgement where<br \/>\ncomputation of damages was undertaken by the Court based on affidavits filed<br \/>\non behalf of the Plaintiff:<\/span><\/p>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><i><span lang=\"EN-IN\">\u201c<\/span><\/i><i>19. As regards the relief of damages and costs, an affidavit has<br \/>\nbeen filed by the Constituted Attorney of the plaintiff and considering the<br \/>\ndownloaded copies of facebook post of defendant No.5 exhibited as Ex.PW-1\/28<br \/>\n(colly) it can safely be held that the defendants No.3 and 5 are carrying on<br \/>\nthe business in the infringing goods for at least 15 months. 23 and 22 pairs of<br \/>\ninfringing shoes have been recovered from the premises of defendant No.3 and 5<br \/>\nrespectively which can be sought for in any given month of the year.<\/i><\/span><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"mso-margin-bottom-alt: auto; mso-margin-top-alt: auto; text-align: justify;\">\n<i><span style=\"font-family: inherit;\">As per the independent<br \/>\nInvestigator, the pair of shoes from the shop of defendant No.3 was bought for<br \/>\n\u20b9700\/- and from the shop of defendant No.5 for \u20b91,795\/-. Thus, considering the<br \/>\nturnover of defendant No.3 as \u20b92,41,500\/- for 15 months and that of defendant<br \/>\nNo.5 for \u20b95,92,350\/- and taking the margin of profit being 25% on the illegal<br \/>\nturnover, the profit earned by defendant No.3 would be \u20b915,093\/- and that of<br \/>\ndefendant No.5 would be \u20b91,48,088\/-.\u201d<\/span><\/i><\/div>\n<div class=\"MsoNormal\" style=\"text-align: justify;\">\n<span lang=\"EN-IN\" style=\"font-family: inherit;\">Although this was an <i>ex parte <\/i>proceeding, perhaps the Court could have considered<br \/>\nexamining the Plaintiff\u2019s Constituted Attorney and the \u201cindependent investigator\u201d<br \/>\nwhose affidavits were relied upon for computation of damages. Further, since 23<br \/>\nand 22 infringing pairs of shoes were recovered from the premises of the<br \/>\nDefendant No. 3 and Defendant No. 5 respectively, the Court assumed that the<br \/>\nDefendants would have sold such numbers in any given month of the year. If only<br \/>\n10 infringing pairs each had been recovered, would the Court have treated these<br \/>\nfigures as the quantum of monthly infringing sales by the Defendants? The Court<br \/>\nhas also assumed the profit margin of the Defendants to be 25%, the basis for<br \/>\nwhich has not been articulated in the decision. An <i>ex parte <\/i>proceeding<i> <\/i>may<br \/>\nlack the adversarial push-back from the absent party, but that does not give the<br \/>\nCourt greater latitude with its assumptions either for or against the absent<br \/>\nparty or the party which is present. Or does it? Which takes us to a different, but important question of how<br \/>\ndoes a Court render a balanced verdict in an <i>ex parte <\/i>proceeding. This is an issue I will address in a later<br \/>\npost. <\/span><\/div>\n<p>\n<span style=\"font-family: inherit;\"><span lang=\"EN-IN\">Coming back to the decision, while<br \/>\nthe DB\u2019s exhortations on exemplary damages were perhaps not relevant to the case<br \/>\nat hand, the underlying rigorous approach to award of damages advocated by the<br \/>\nDB was certainly relevant, which, some might say, does not reflect in the Court\u2019s application<br \/>\nto the facts of the case.<\/span>\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>On December 12, 2017, the Delhi High Court delivered a crisp 21-paragraph ex parte decree against the defendants in a suit for infringement of the \u201cRed Sole\u201d trademark instituted by the global luxury retail brand Christian Louboutin. Apart from granting injunctive reliefs to the brand owner\/plaintiff against the defendants and declaring the Red Sole trademark [&hellip;]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[202579,99073,99074,202580],"tags":[35549,1871,410,16335,1521,202581,13989],"dealstore":[],"offerexpiration":[],"class_list":["post-7040042","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-damages","category-trademark","category-trademark-infringement","category-trademark-litigation","tag-analysing","tag-christian","tag-court","tag-delhi","tag-high","tag-louboutin","tag-verdict"],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v26.4 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/wordpress\/plugins\/seo\/ -->\n<title>Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"On December 12, 2017, the Delhi High Court delivered a crisp 21-paragraph ex parte decree against the defendants in a suit for infringement of the \u201cRed Sole\u201d trademark instituted by the global luxury retail brand Christian Louboutin. Apart from granting injunctive reliefs to the brand owner\/plaintiff against the defendants and declaring the Red Sole trademark [&hellip;]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Som2ny Network\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"5 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\"},\"headline\":\"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court\",\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\"},\"wordCount\":1109,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"keywords\":[\"analysing\",\"Christian\",\"Court\",\"Delhi\",\"High\",\"Louboutin\",\"Verdict\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Damages\",\"trademark\",\"trademark infringement\",\"Trademark Litigation\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\",\"name\":\"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"description\":\"Daily Deals\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Som2ny Network\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png\",\"width\":300,\"height\":86,\"caption\":\"Som2ny Network\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/\"}},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371\",\"name\":\"admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png\",\"caption\":\"admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network","og_description":"On December 12, 2017, the Delhi High Court delivered a crisp 21-paragraph ex parte decree against the defendants in a suit for infringement of the \u201cRed Sole\u201d trademark instituted by the global luxury retail brand Christian Louboutin. Apart from granting injunctive reliefs to the brand owner\/plaintiff against the defendants and declaring the Red Sole trademark [&hellip;]","og_url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042","og_site_name":"Som2ny Network","article_published_time":"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00","author":"admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"admin","Est. reading time":"5 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042"},"author":{"name":"admin","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371"},"headline":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court","datePublished":"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042"},"wordCount":1109,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"keywords":["analysing","Christian","Court","Delhi","High","Louboutin","Verdict"],"articleSection":["Damages","trademark","trademark infringement","Trademark Litigation"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042","name":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court - Som2ny Network","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website"},"datePublished":"2026-08-17T00:44:21+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?p=7040042#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?bp_activities=1"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Analysing the Christian Louboutin Verdict of the Delhi High Court"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#website","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","name":"Som2ny Network","description":"Daily Deals","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#organization","name":"Som2ny Network","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/4a0953c4-logo-300x86-1.png","width":300,"height":86,"caption":"Som2ny Network"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"}},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/b85e3c3dc0e1daea076524dc8810c371","name":"admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/729ae85bf62b9917e93538db2f2688ca?s=96&r=g&default=https%3A%2F%2Ffivemor.com%2Fwp-content%2Fplugins%2Fbuddypress-first-letter-avatar%2Fimages%2Fdefault%2F96%2Flatin_a.png","caption":"admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/fivemor.com"],"url":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/?author=1"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7040042","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=7040042"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7040042\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=7040042"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=7040042"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=7040042"},{"taxonomy":"dealstore","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fdealstore&post=7040042"},{"taxonomy":"offerexpiration","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/fivemor.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fofferexpiration&post=7040042"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}