Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 11 (0.21 seconds)
Gujarat Cooperative Milk Marketing ... vs Akshar Foods And Beverages & Anr. on 4 August, 2022 cites

Mother Dairy Foods And Processing Ltd. vs Zee Telefilms Ltd. on 24 January, 2005

In a similar fact situation, in Mother Dairy Foods and Processing Ltd. v. Zee Telefilms Ltd. [AIR 2005 Delhi 195], the Court was concerned with an application seeking interim injunction restraining the Defendant from telecasting, publishing and showing on its website, its programme titled "Inside Story- Safed Doodh Ka Kala Karobar". The Plaintiff, which is a public sector enterprise engaged in the supply of milk and milk products, also aggrieved by virtue of the said telecast investigating into how synthetic milk is being manufactured and sought damages for defamation. The Court, while rejecting the application seeking interim injunction, made the following observations which are relevant to the present case:
Delhi High Court Cites 7 - Cited by 10 - M Sarin - Full Document

Tata Chemicals Ltd. vs Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd. on 15 March, 2019

In Tata Chemicals Ltd. v. Puro Wellness Pvt. Ltd. [CS (OS) 403/2018 decided on 15th March, 2019], this Court was concerned with disparaging and slanderous advertising material, including pamphlets/booklets, television commercials, articles/interviews and videos, used by the Defendant which claimed that the Plaintiff's product- 'TATA' Salt is harmful for health and not fit for human consumption. Relying upon the settled position of law as reiterated in several decisions, this Court observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 3 - P M Singh - Full Document

Hamdard National Foundation & Anr. vs Hussain Dalal & Ors. on 7 June, 2013

In Hamdard National Foundation & Ors. v. Hussain Dalal & Ors. [CS (OS) No.1225/2013 decided on 7th June, 2013], the Plaintiffs, who are the proprietors of the well-known mark 'Roohafza', filed a suit against the Defendants for commercial disparagement and tarnishment of goodwill and damages. It was the grievance of the Plaintiffs, that the Defendants had CS (COMM) 314/2021 Page 9 of 18 This is a digitally signed Judgement.
Delhi High Court Cites 11 - Cited by 6 - M Singh - Full Document

Marico Limited vs Abhijeet Bhansali on 15 January, 2020

In an appeal challenging the above judgment in Marico Limited (supra), while permitting the impugned video to be published with certain modifications, the ld. Division Bench of the Bombay High Court in Abhijeet Bhansali v. Marico Limited [Interim Application No. 1 of 2020 in Commercial Appeal (L) No. 31 of 2020 in Notice of Motion No. 1094 of 2019 in COMIP No. 596 of 2019, decided on 14th February, 2020], laid down the following principles in respect of disparaging and defamatory statements leading to tarnishment of a brand:
Bombay High Court Cites 26 - Cited by 2 - S J Kathawalla - Full Document

T. V. Today Network Limited vs News Laundry Media Private Limited & ... on 29 July, 2022

In the recent decision in T.V. Today Network Limited v. News Laundry Media Private Limited & Ors. [CS(COMM) 551/2021 decided on 29th July, 2022], the case of the Plaintiff, which operates the prominent television channels, namely 'Aaj Tak', 'India Today Television' and 'Good News TV', was that the Defendants have ridiculed and defamed the Plaintiff Company by publishing various videos and articles containing false, malicious, defamatory and derogatory information, through their digital news platform being 'Newslaundry'. On the issue of commercial disparagement, the ld. Single Judge of this Court observed as under:
Delhi High Court Cites 58 - Cited by 2 - A Menon - Full Document

The Indian Performing Right Society Ltd vs Gauhati Town Club & Anr on 30 January, 2013

NEUTRAL CITATION NO: 2022/DHC/003932 record. However, it is not deemed expedient to further await the same and allow this matter to languish, for the reason that I have in Indian Performing Rights Society Ltd. Vs. Gauhati Town Club MANU/DE/0582/2013 held that where the defendant is ex parte and the material before the Court is sufficient to allow the claim of the plaintiff, the time of the Court should not be wasted in directing ex parte evidence to be recorded and which mostly is nothing buta repetition of the contents of the plaint."
Delhi High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 50 - R S Endlaw - Full Document
1   2 Next