Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“With respect to the bona fide requirement of the landlord, the landlord was only to make out a legitimate case setting out the plausible reason which are not fanciful and unreasonable to establish a bona fide requirement of the subject premises.”
“The Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958 is silent about any requirement of the landlord giving the details/ divulging anything qua the nature/ purpose/ disclosure of the proposed new business by the landlord.”
“This Court while dealing with edible items for human consumption, owes a duty of exercising a greater degree of care, caution as also to apply a more stringent test to avoid any possibility/likelihood of confusion between different edible products amongst the general public.”
“Any confusion between the edible products, if allowed to continue, can lead to disastrous consequences on human health. Therefore, the Court must adopt more cautious and stringent approach for judging the likelihood of confusion and to exercise greater care.”
The Court observed that many accounts on YouTube channels and Meta’s social media platforms are using modern day technology to modify the voice, image, likeness etc. of Sadhguru to garner more views and subscribers to piggyback on his name and reputation.
In the present case, a social media influencer-Defendant 3, was the owner of Instagram handle “@hustlewithhritik”, and uploaded the reel titled “Never Use Dettol in your Skin” featuring the offending portion of the impugned podcast.
The systematic, organised and intentional nature of the infringement, and the regularity and consistency with which the said content is being updated/ uploaded on the said “rogue websites” shows the extent of the violation of the rights of the plaintiff in real time.
“An average consumer with an imperfect recollection is likely to be deceived into thinking that the plaintiff has opened a new ‘SOCIAL’ outlet in Vadodara, Gujarat where the defendant is operating its outlet.”
The Delhi High Court directed the respondents to consider releasing petitioner’s terminal benefits by taking into account the higher salary which he was drawing during the 14 years when he was working as a Research Officer.