Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
In the third week of July 2023, the plaintiff, through its representative/ salesperson, came to know about the defendant’s use of a mark identical to the plaintiff’s device/logo on their shoes.
The expression “soon before her death” in Section 304-B of Penal Code, 1860 must be read as an expression of continuity of time and not an expression of mere length of time. The legislature in its wisdom had used the phrase as “soon before” and not “immediately before”.
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.
The Court stated that the applicant should obtain necessary permissions from the municipal authorities concerned to see if more trees can be planted on the road leading to the Supreme Court as the same was enveloped with fully grown trees till some years ago.
Defendants 2 to 4 edited the page pertaining to the plaintiff to include allegedly false, misleading and defamatory remarks/content against the Plaintiff. It is stated that the remarks and statements against the plaintiff form a substantial portion of the Plaintiff’s Page, which is accessible to users and non-users of the Platform.
Justice C.D. Singh’s transfer to Allahabad High Court was recommended by the Supreme Court Collegium in November 2024 and the same was confirmed by the Ministry of Law and Justice on 28-2025.
Courts are zealous guardians for the protection of the properties of minors and efforts must be made to ensure that the properties are immediately secured so that they are not frittered by unscrupulous relatives who like vultures want to prey on the meagre belongings that have been left behind.
The Court stated that Defendants 1,8, 9 and 10 are engaged in illegal activities, which are potentially criminal in nature, and are aimed at deceiving unwary consumers by making them pay through their website under the false pretence of securing reservations with the plaintiff’s ‘GINGER’ hotels.
Despite having multiple opportunities to report the alleged acts, complainant remained silent. Her complaint came only after the pregnancy was discovered. The Court stated that these facts lend credence to the possibility that the FIR was a reaction to social pressure and the nature of the relationship was re-cast retrospectively to explain an unwanted pregnancy.
The unauthorized actions of Defendant 1, including the creation and operation of fraudulent WhatsApp/Telegram groups, websites and mobile apps, have given rise to substantial confusion, leading individuals to falsely believe that the impugned groups and website are affiliated with plaintiff.
Despite Respondent 1’s endeavour to create distinctions, it is crystal clear that the marks are confusingly/deceptively similar to the petitioner’s registered trade mark. Such use of a similar mark would invariably mislead consumers and members into believing that the goods under the impugned mark were sourced from the petitioner.
Currently a Judge of Delhi High Court, the SC Collegium had recommended the transfer of Justice Sharma on 27-3-2025.
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.
The plaintiff stated that on 22-01-2025, the defendant announced on various social media platforms that the Assigned Film will be released on 27-03-2025. He stated that the theatrical release of the Assigned Film is proposed in the Southern States of India i.e., Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Pondicherry in original language – Tamil as well as overseas (except Nepal).
The Court stated that the mala fide intent of Defendants 7 and 8, is evident from their infringing activity of selling counterfeit products bearing the plaintiff’s trade mark with the sole objective of capitalizing on the immense goodwill and brand image enjoyed by the plaintiff.
The accused, despite being fully aware of the age difference, actively pursued the relationship, gave assurances of marriage, and induced the victim to make financial and emotional commitments.
The CCTV footage exhibited before the Court does not clearly reveal the shooter’s identity. Moreover, the forensic analysis of the CCTV footage and the Call Detail Records analysis of the accused’s mobile phone is still pending. Therefore, the Court refrains from drawing any conclusions at this stage.
The Accessibility Audit Report revealed an alarming state of affairs inasmuch as 207 accessibility issues is identified in the ‘Rapido Android App’. Notably, 81 of these issues are referred to as “High Impact (P0)”.
An in-house enquiry was initiated by the Supreme Court after reports surfaced that a huge pile of unaccounted cash was found from the residence of Justice Varma.
When exercising jurisdiction under Section 482 of CrPC, the Court will not ordinarily embark upon an inquiry whether the evidence in question is reliable or whether on a reasonable appreciation of it the accusations will not be sustained, as that is the function of the Trial Court.