“Needless to say, matrimonial matters are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship and to maintain such relationship for a long, there is requirement of mutual trust, regard, respect, love and affection.”
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.
“Viewed from the perspective of initial impression conveyed by defendant’s mark on the mind of consumer of average intelligence and imperfect recollection, if a court crosses such consumer’s mind as to whether market is not the same as, or associated with, the mark of plaintiff, which is seen earlier in point of time, “likelihood of confusion” and “likelihood of association”, within the meaning of Section 29(2)(b) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 necessarily exists.”
In an anti-SLAPP ruling, Supreme Court of Canada dismissed defamation suit targeting counter counter-speech protecting rights of marginalised groups, i.e.; transgender and other 2SLGBTQ+ youth.
The Delhi High Court opined that passing comments like “negligent” and “insensitive” might impair a person’s confidence, work, and reputation, thus, the Court deleted remarks in the orders passed by Trial Court against police officers.
Unfounded criminal charges and long drawn criminal prosecution can have serious consequences. A person subjected to such litigation suffers immense mental trauma, humiliation and monetary loss.
If the court were to find that the material which is likely to be broadcast or published already exists in the public domain and has existed as such for a considerable period without an objection having been raised, that too would detract from the right of the plaintiff to seek ad interim injunctive relief.
The Delhi High Court held that the use of mark “AIVVA” by Aivva Enterprises (P) Ltd. was phonetically similar to the mark “AIWA” of Aiwa Co. Ltd. and thus, caused confusion in the market. Therefore, the Court confirmed ex-parte ad interim injunction in favour of the mark “AIWA” in a trade mark infringement suit.
Delhi High Court granted permanent injunction in favour of Dream 11 against the person who was operating under the domain name ‘www.dream11.bet’ and held that the domain name adopted by the defendant was deceptively similar to that of the plaintiffs and was clearly intended to ride on the goodwill and reputation of the plaintiff’s marks.
Delhi High Court: In a case filed by ITC Ltd. seeking protection of the trade mark ‘BUKHARA', the Single Judge
“Questioning the honesty of a person is the worst form of accusation and the same can have a serious detrimental effect on the reputation of a person. It would harm the reputation of any person, and especially an advocate, in the estimation of the right-thinking members of society. There is no doubt that such a statement is per se defamatory.”
Bombay High Court: In an appeal filed by wife challenging the judgment and decree dated 22-11-2005, passed by the Family
Madras High Court: Krishnan Ramasamy, J. has granted interim injunction against YouTuber Savukku Sankar, restraining him from making defamatory remarks
Delhi High Court: Mini Pushkarna, J. granted ad interim injunction against Pawan Khera and others (‘defendants’) who allegedly organized a Press Conference
Delhi High Court: Asha Menon, J. denied relief sought by ‘TV Today Network’ ‘plaintiff ‘on allegations of copyright infringement, defamation and commercial
Punjab & Haryana High Court: While deciding an appeal arising from a divorce petition, the bench of Ritu Bahri, J. and Meenakshi
Karnataka High Court (Dharwad Bench): Suraj Govindaraj, J. while deciding a matter regarding handcuffing of an accused during arrest, held that “handcuffing
Punjab and Haryana High Court: Expressing that, Matrimonial cases are matters of delicate human and emotional relationship, the Division Bench of Ritu
Delhi High Court: While addressing a matter surrounding the issue of cruelty by wife, the Division Bench of Vipin Sanghi, ACJ and
United Kingdom Supreme Court: The Bench of Lord Reed, President and Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Sales, Lord Hamblen and Lord Stephens, held that