Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora

Ravi Shankar Personality Rights
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Defendant 1 is circulating fabricated videos of Ravi Shankar on Facebook and on other independent websites, utilizing advanced AI technologies, including ‘deepfake’ tools, to digitally impersonate the plaintiff’s voice, facial expressions, persona and likeness, thereby creating a false impression amongst the world at large that Ravi Shankar is personally speaking, endorsing or promoting the content therein.”

Barbie trade mark case
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Since 2011, through campaigns like ‘You Can Be Anything’ and initiatives such as the Shero program and Fashionistas collections, Mattel has promoted inclusivity, diversity, and women’s empowerment. With a vibrant online presence, scholarly attention, and millions of fans worldwide, the trademark BARBIE has evolved into a multifaceted brand symbolizing imagination, aspiration, and inspiration for generations.”

Karan Johar personality rights
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Given the commercial value of these publicity rights, a celebrity is entitled to safeguard his interest against any misuse of the personality attributes which includes his name, image, voice and likeness.”

Haveli restaurants trade mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The defendant has affixed the plaintiff’s trade mark HAVELI with another word i.e., ‘PUNJABI’ and the word ‘PUNJABI’ has been incorporated in such a small font, that it remains insignificant to the eyes of the viewers misleading the customers into believing that the defendant’s restaurant is associated with the plaintiff.”

Zepto trade mark infringement
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were representatives/associates of Zepto and so as to scam them into paying for fake job opportunities with Zepto

NDTV in trade mark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Delhi High Court directed the Department of Telecommunications and Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology to issue a notification calling upon the various internet service providers and telecom service providers, registered under it to block access to the various websites identified by NDTV in the present suit or such other websites that may subsequently be notified by them.

Sci-net and Sci-hub blocked
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“Given the wilful disregard for the undertaking by Defendant 1, blocking access to ‘Sci-Hub’ and ‘Sci-Net’ through internet service providers is a necessary and proportionate enforcement measure, failure of which may embolden further violations of the plaintiffs’ copyrights.”

Ghar Soaps trademark
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“It is clear that whilst selling counterfeit products, these listings display marks/trademarks that are deceptively similar to the Plaintiff’s marks, thereby infringing the Plaintiff’s trade marks and constituting an act of passing off as well.

Premji Invest trade mark infringement
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Defendants were operating several websites and applications to trick the general public into believing that they were associated with Premji Invest so as to scam them into illegal and fraudulent investments.

INDmoney trade mark infringement
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The actions of defendant 1 are misleading unsuspecting customers, resulting in them sharing their confidential information and spending their hard-earned money on these infringing platforms. It is evident that defendant 1 are trying to create the impression that their websites, Social Media Groups, are associated with INDmoney”

rent payment not sale consideration
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Court presumed that the absence of a reason for not disclosing the higher amount in the Agreement to Sell (‘ATS’), and the lack of explanation for payment of sale consideration disguised as rent is likely to evade taxes. This suppression made the 1982 ATS illegal, and against the public policy as per, Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872.

non-issuance of summons DV
Case BriefsHigh Courts

“The specific incidents pleaded in the complaint against the husband has already resulted in initiation of criminal proceedings against him and the reliefs sought in the complaint are being pursued against husband and being heard by the Trial Court.”

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The plaintiff is aggrieved by the incident which occurred at her residence on 26-07-2024 in the late evening, after she withdrew her participation from a live debate programme (‘live debate’) hosted by Rajdeep Sardesai premised on ‘Kargil Diwas’ and ‘Agniveers’, telecasted at 9:00 PM on India Today Television.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

Amit Malviya had filed a criminal defamation complaint before the Patiala House Court against Santanu Sinha, a Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (‘RSS’) member, regarding Facebook posts made by him.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The direction for taking down the impugned video was necessary since India Today was unable to state whether or not Rajdeep Sardesai had been authorized to use the impugned video.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

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.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The petition was filed by a company licensed to manufacture and trade Pan Masala brands like Rajnigandha, Tansen, and Mastaba seeking a declaration that Regulation 2(i) of Food Safety and Standards (Labelling and Display) Second Amendment Regulations, 2022 be declared as illegal and violative of Articles 14, 19(1)(a) and 19(1)(g).

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court said that the non-appearance of the defendants evidenced their unwillingness to participate in the forensic examination and verification of their claims of the dead insect made in the social media posts.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court said that the issuance of a commitment letter does not make the issuer a ‘bidder’ in the tender process.

Delhi High Court
Case BriefsHigh Courts

The Delhi High Court directed the petition to be treated as a representation to the Chief Secretary, Government, State (NCT of Delhi).