such as "Google AdSense" to promote the
website on search engines. URLs and domain names are deceptively
similar to the plaintiff
images should not be available on the website and on the
search engines of Google/defendant no. 14.
11. However, learned counsel appearing for defendant
petitioner submits that from the
LinkedIn, pinterest and google search engine, it is evident that the
respondents are still using the impugned mark
metatag of
their website. Due to such inclusion, any search for Havells on Google
search engine generates the link to Defendant
URLs of the news articles pertaining to
Petitioner from all platforms, search engines, var1ous
domain name extensions and from those search
engines to which
EXTENT OF THE SAME NOT
BEING VISIBLE IN THE SEARCH ENGINE OF THE GOOGLE OR
OTHER SEARCH ENGINES AVAILABLE ON THE INTERNET AS
PER ANNEXURE
references on its various platforms in
various combinations in the search engine of the
defendant.
c. a direction directing the defendant to render
the accounts
references on its various platforms in
various combinations in the search engine of the
defendant.
c. a direction directing the defendant to render
the accounts
personal details in Exhibits P1 to P4 published in google search
engine platforms, public domain and their websites pending disposal of
the above case
needless to say that merely by putting name of petitioner on search engine, conclusion has been drawn that her marksheet is forged. The standard procedure ... that since his/her certificates could not be verified on the search engine namely Google, they are forged.
11. At this stage, learned Standing Counsel
