Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
“As there is no specific allegation that how the advertisement was false and misleading so as to constitute the offence punishable under Sections 3, 4 & 7 of 1954 Act then there was no occasion for the trial court to take the cognizance and summon the petitioners to face trial.”
Supreme Court had issued a contempt notice against Patanjali Ayurveda and its Managing Director (‘MD’) on 27-02-2024.
Supreme Court had previously slammed Patanjali Ayurved for misleading ads against modern medicine.
Supreme Court commented that it did not aim at making the instant matter a debate on ‘Allopathy v. Ayurved’ but finding a realistic solution for the problem of misleading medical advertisements.
The Plaintiff is aggrieved by a video circulating on Facebook pages containing disparaging remarks against the product of the Plaintiff i.e., edible oil bearing the registered trademark “MAHAKOSH”.
Madras High Court: C. V. Karthikeyan, J., granted temporary injunction and restrained “Patanjali” from using the word ‘CORONIL’ as the plaintiff has the