Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News
Covering all the important criminal cases across various High Courts and the Supreme Court, this roundup provides a quick summary of cases, links to other roundups, latest legal updates in criminal law and a few top stories of the month.
“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.”
The Court was hearing a writ petition filed by IMA seeking regulation of medical advertisements by Patanjali Ayurved Ltd.
The very branding and labelling of the said Tablet as Coronil appear to suggest that the drug nullifies the coronavirus, it cures the disease, which may even amount to mis-labelling and/or mis-branding of the drug, which is impermissible under the provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
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 grievance of Patanjali Ayurved is that a video has been uploaded by respondent on the internet platforms owned by Meta Inc. having an advertisement of mens undergarments, wherein Patanjali’s trademark along with pictures of its brand ambassadors and directors are shown used unauthorizedly.
Delhi High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of J.R. Midha, J., in an order directed Facebook Inc., Google LLC, YouTube LLC