The Tamil Nadu police on Tuesday arrested R Rajagopal, editor of popular Tamil magazine Nakkeeran. The police have filed a case underneath Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code on a grievance seemingly lodged via the governor’s office, according to information reviews. The police are yet to launch the first records report.

The count pertains to a cover story that the mag carried with allegations linking the governor’s office to research into a possible sex racket on the Madurai Kamaraj University, forcing young girls to offer sexual favors to powerful men. A female lecturer becomes arrested inside the case, and Governor Banwarilal Purohit formed a one-guy commission to move into the case.

If one went using initial reports, the arrest was executed under a regulation seldom used anywhere within the united states of America. Section 124 of the Indian Penal Code penalizes people who attack the President or the Governor and restrain them from discharging their responsibilities or compel them to discharge their duties through force.

This is what it says:

“Assaulting President, Governor, and many others., with reason to compel or restrain the exercise of any lawful energy. — Whoever, to include or compel the President of India, or the Governor any State to exercise or refrain from exercising in any way any of the lawful powers of such President or Governor, assault or wrongfully restrains, or attempts wrongfully to restrain, or overawes, by way of criminal pressure or the show of criminal pressure, or tries to overawe, such President or Governor will be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may additionally expand to seven years, and shall also be vulnerable to first-class.”

A mere reading of this provision clarifies that the law mentions attack and factors to an assault of physical nature. But in this example, the editor becomes arrested under the section for publishing a file in a magazine, a contravention of crook manner. Section 124 is a non-bailable provision. Section 124 has been very not often used by states anywhere in India. A sweep of prison libraries online does no longer turn up any case settled both within the High Courts or the Supreme Court for this provision being invoked inside the manner it has been. This means using Section 124 in opposition to Rajagopal may be one of the very few times since the Indian Penal Code itself was enacted.

Earlier this year, the governor stated that he might want to invoke this provision against people who pose hurdles to his conferences with officials across the kingdom. This turned into aimed toward the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, which adversarial the governors circulate to take stock of the implementation of presidency schemes within the state. This incident would seem to be a clear violation of unfastened expression. In 1997, in choosing a prior restraint order on the autobiography of a serial killer named “Auto” Shankar, again in Nakkeeran related to R Rajagopal, the Supreme Court made it clear that the usual of privateness for public figures became one-of-a-kind from laymen. The court stated:

“In the case of public officials, it’s miles apparent, proper to privateness, or for that count number, the remedy of the action for damages is sincerely no longer to be had with recognize to their acts and conduct relevant to the discharge in their reputable obligations. This is so even where the publication is based upon records and statements which aren’t actual, except the legit establishes that the e-book became made (via the defendant) with reckless push aside for reality. In this kind of case, it would be sufficient for the defendant (member of the clicking or media) to prove that he acted after a reasonable verification of the facts; he doesn’t need to show that what he has written is real.”

When this is the case, even for defamation court cases and earlier-restrain orders, invoking a law as serious as Section 124 for publishing an information record imposes uncalled-for regulations on a media residence. The Tamil Nadu authorities have records intimidating the press with defamation cases. When Jayalalithaa changed into the chief minister, masses of such cases were filed against newspapers and magazines.

The case of Castellani SpA v Office for Harmonisation within the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) (Case T-149/06) [2007] concerned an opposition of a European Community exchange mark. On the twenty-fifth of September 2001, the applicant applied to check in a Community Trade Mark. The utility changed into made to the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (Trade Marks and Designs) (OHIM) and changed into accomplished below Council Regulation (EC) No 40/ninety-four (on the Community Trade Mark).

The applicant sought registration for the figurative mark ‘CASTELLANI’. On the 4th of September 2002, an agency referred to as Markant filed a be aware of competition to register the change mark at the grounds of earlier registration. The organization had registered the word ‘CASTELLUCCI’. The opposition referred to all the products protected by way of the earlier registrations. It turned into directed in opposition to all the products regarding which registration changed into sought – the likelihood of bewilderment at the part of the public due to the similarity between the earlier change mark and the trademark sought and the goods in question.

The Opposition Division of OHIM rejected the competition in its entirety. Once the mark became taken into consideration, it becomes determined that the alternate mark was carried out for, and the sooner marks were visual and phonetically dissimilar. Furthermore, the applicable public might not perceive any conceptual similarity between the marks in dispute.

The opponent appealed towards this selection to the Opposition Division. The First Board of Appeal of OHIM annulled this selection of the Opposition Division. It rejected the utility for registration, finding that there has been a likelihood of misunderstanding among the change mark ‘CASTELLANI’ and the earlier trade mark ‘CASTELLUCCI’. However, the applicant appealed, claiming that the Court of First Instance has to annul the contested selection. The applicant alleged an unmarried plea of infringement of Article eight(1)(b) of Regulation forty/ ninety-four.