Thanks for waiting for me !!
Here're my answers and the explanation follows.
It was a tough one, took me a greater part of 5 minutes. Real bad one. Writing explanations has taken over half an hour
1. (A). Discussion clearly was on the losses to trademark owners (begining of para 2) and the legal ways to battle it. B has a wrong second half. C is not mentioned in the paragraphs. D is out of scope. No "case outcomes" have been discussed. E is clearly wrong (the laws have failed to curb the gray markets, not increased - besides one of the law is capable of controlling them).
2. (D) A is wrong (motives are not discussed). B is wrong because channel flow diversion iis the generic term for both market in market and parallel importation, C is not true because the three theories have been discussed only for parallel importation cases and not general gray markets. D is a generic statement, and is true. (though the word "controversy is not used, it does describe conflicting viewpoints over gray market practices). E is wrong because no economic factors have been discussed.
3. (B). Comes directly from the statement "Equally important, authorized distributors may cease to promote the product if it becomes available for much lower prices through unauthorized channels"
4. (A). This is because (a) Territorial and exhaustion differ only in the country in which the product is registered, and (b) Exhaustion rules out rights after the sale from trademark holder to distributer, while territorial makes no distinction. Since both these aspects are covered in (A) hence this option.
5. (B) Seemingly pretty straightforward. A, C, D and E are all not mentioned in the passage.
6. (C). Since there's no enthusians or a lot of emotion involved, options B and D can be ruled out. Since there's no sarcasm or cynicism in the passage, option E is out too. Since the author does have hope that one law does protect gray marketing, resigned tolerance is also ruled out.
7. (E). This is because A is almost unfavorable to authorized distribution, B makes no difference to avoiding gray market (non-promotion is a symptom of gray market, not a cause - so tackling a symptom doesn't remove gray marketing), C makes no difference at all, D, like B is an effect of gray markets - auth dealers would refuse to promote or post sale serve the customers if the gray markets continue to eat into their profits - taking them into the manufacturer's prerogative is almost like opposing the auth distributers themselves. E almost ensures that the consumers would not buy the gray market products, knowing they'd not get "Extended product" support.
Who says elephants can't dance?