Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“Chapter V, NDPS Act, of which Sections 41 and 42 comprise an important part, sets-out the procedure mandated by the Legislature for entry, search, seizure and arrest in relation to offences under that statute.”
“Filing of an application for rejection of plaint by Defendant 2 after lapse of statutory period for filing written statement, will not entitle Defendant 2 for grant of any extension of time for filing written statement on that ground.”
“The DNRs continue to promote alternative infringing domain names, several of which are clearly prima facie infringing the trade marks of the plaintiffs. In such a situation, not only shall the concerned DNRs lose the safe harbour protection, the said DNRs would be liable to be treated as infringers against whom reliefs would be liable to be claimed.”
“Plaintiff is entitled to complain that any content which is set in obscene backdrop or shows her in inappropriate clothing and/or which falsely portrays her as endorsing brands, where there is no authorisation and/or which uses attributes and elements of her persona such as her images, voices, etc. is liable to be forthwith taken down from the public space.”
The Delhi High Court examined multiple suits involving misuse of well-known trademarks through fraudulent domain names used for impersonation and consumer deception.
“Statutes creating new protections or disabilities operate prospectively unless expressly stated otherwise.”
With similar frameworks already emerging in other states, the Delhi High Court begins evaluating whether formal child access and parenting plan guidelines are needed.
Court restrained defendants from circulating videos that falsely linked the plaintiff’s mouth freshener product with tobacco-related health risks.
“As per the YouTube Policy, Strike Notices are not capable of affording resolution of the disputes between the parties on the aspect of the infringement of the copyright.”
When to step in and when to not, “the line is thin, but Courts are expected to possess the intellectual wherewithal to discern it and walk the right side.”
The Delhi High Court noted that the TIGER logo of Heineken Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd had been copied in totality and hence, the registration of the impugned artistic work could not be permitted to continue in the Register of Copyrights
“The recording of reasons while setting aside an order cannot, by itself, be construed as a reflection on the competence, integrity, or ability of the judicial officer who passed the order, unless there are specific and express observations to that effect.”
“Both the statutory framework under the POCSO Act and the Guidelines framed by this Court recognise that the use of technology and protective arrangements is an important tool to ensure that the testimony of vulnerable witnesses is recorded in a manner that is both — fair to the accused and sensitive to the needs of the victim.”
The dispute concerned the broadcast and commercial exploitation of the ween the parties relating to the broadcast and commercial exploitation of the Legends League Cricket tournament, managed by Absolute Legends Sports.
“This conduct of the defendant shows its consistent manner of not complying with the directions of this Court in a timely manner without being directed again and again; and thus, shows wilful disregard for legal process.”
“Despite the forgiveness expressed by respondent No. 2 towards the petitioner, whom she brought up as a daughter, must the Court compel the criminal proceedings to be taken to their logical conclusion?”
“Viewed from the perspective of a person in the know, it is prima facie clear that Semaglutide would be obvious from the teachings contained in the Genius Patent and that, therefore, a credible challenge to the validity of the suit patent, under Section 64(1)(f), is made out.”
The Court directed that electricity supply to the premises be restored within seven days subject to payment of electricity charges by the petitioner.
“The observations limited only qua the Investigating Officer are stayed, till the next date of hearing, including the direction recommending departmental action against him.”
Holding that the Sentence Review Board cannot reject premature release solely on the gravity of the offence, the Delhi High Court said such decisions must consider custodial conduct, rehabilitative indicators, and other relevant factors under the 2004 Policy and Delhi Prison Rules, 2018.