Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
U.S. Department of Justice and several States homed in on Google’s distribution agreements and in late 2020 filed lawsuits alleging that the agreements and certain other conduct violated Section 2 of the Sherman Act.
GCMMF has been given liberty by the Court to intimate all three platforms of any other URL containing the impugned post/video apart from the ones enlisted in the plaint, which would have to be deleted by them within 36 hours.
The press and the Media had a duty to report the incident for the benefit of the public, but there is also a corresponding duty to remain truthful to the incident. The deepfake videos showing plaintiff being beaten up are nothing but an over-sensationalisation and depiction of facts which are patently false.
The extracts of the relevant web-pages furnished by the Hoichoi, the petitioners, themselves go on to show that the Google Play platform merely offers different payment methods but does not itself Act as a PA.
The present case is a classic example of typo-squatting, which relies on mistakes or typos made by internet users at the time of entering a website address/URL on the web browser and is bound to create confusion in the minds of the consumers.
“A risk of trade mark infringement occurs when a registered trade mark is used as a keyword by a third party to link its website to promote its goods and services, which creates confusion in the minds of the consumers about the source of the product.”
Madras High Court said that merely because Section 62 of the CCI Act, 2002 states that the provisions of this Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law, it cannot be interpreted that any individual can institute proceedings in a Commercial Court alleging abuse of dominance, while completely ignoring Section 61 of the Act of 2002.
“Use of trade marks as keywords cannot, by any stretch, be construed as applying the registered trade mark to any material intended to be used for labelling or packing goods, as a business paper, or for advertising goods or services.”
While freedom of speech and expression is sacrosanct, the reputation of a person earned over several decades, cannot be sacrificed at the altar of such freedom, when the impugned publication, ex-facie, contains unsubstantiated allegations and defamatory imputations, regardless of the truth.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts this week.
“There is nothing illegal in seeking out internet users as targets for advertisements that they may find relevant. In brick-and-mortar world, there will be no question of infringement if customers looking for a product are also offered products of rival competitors”.
SCOTUS unanimously held that the plaintiffs failed to allege that the social media sites had intentionally provided any substantial aid or systemically assisted ISIS, which directly led to the Reina Nightclub terror attack.
A quick legal roundup to cover important stories from all High Courts in April 2023
There is an abysmal absence of a collaborative effort that should ideally be undertaken by the intermediaries and the State.
Section 15 of the Competition Act is an enabling provision engrafted by the Legislature to overcome any inability which may accrue to statutory authorities like the CCI while acting in furtherance of the aims and objects of the Act.
Delhi High Court observed that every child is entitled to be treated with honour and respect whether he/she is a child of a celebrity or a commoner.
The Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Google LLC for its mark “GOOGLE” and awarded Rs. 10 lakhs as damages to Google LLC which was to be paid jointly and severally by the defendants.
The Tribunal while upholding the impugned order passed by CCI dated 20-10-2022, set aside 4 key directions issued in paragraphs 617.3, 617.9, 617.10 and 617.7.
Google LLC’s download warning in respect of all third-party applications was a mere disclaimer and there was no case made out for trade mark infringement.
This roundup revisits the analyses of Supreme Court’s judgments/orders on constitutionality of Demonetisation; Freedom of Speech of Ministers; Guidelines to withhold life support of a terminally ill patients; Tussle between Delhi Government and Centre, and more. It also covers reports on Justice SA Nazeer’s retirement; the career trajectory & important decision of Justice CT Ravikumar; Explainers on important law points; five ‘Did You Know’ facts; Cases Reported in SCC Weekly in the month of January; and a throwback from SCC Archives.