- Home
- News
- Articles+
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
- News
- Articles
- Aerospace
- Agriculture
- Alternate Dispute Resolution
- Banking and Finance
- Bankruptcy
- Book Review
- Bribery & Corruption
- Commercial Litigation
- Competition Law
- Conference Reports
- Consumer Products
- Contract
- Corporate Governance
- Corporate Law
- Covid-19
- Cryptocurrency
- Cybersecurity
- Data Protection
- Defence
- Digital Economy
- E-commerce
- Employment Law
- Energy and Natural Resources
- Entertainment and Sports Law
- Environmental Law
- FDI
- Food and Beverage
- Health Care
- IBC Diaries
- Insurance Law
- Intellectual Property
- International Law
- Know the Law
- Labour Laws
- Litigation
- Litigation Funding
- Manufacturing
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- NFTs
- Privacy
- Private Equity
- Project Finance
- Real Estate
- Risk and Compliance
- Technology Media and Telecom
- Tributes
- Zoom In
- Take On Board
- In Focus
- Law & Policy and Regulation
- IP & Tech Era
- Viewpoint
- Arbitration & Mediation
- Tax
- Student Corner
- AI
- ESG
- Gaming
- Inclusion & Diversity
- Law Firms
- In-House
- Rankings
- E-Magazine
- Legal Era TV
- Events
Delhi High Court directs website to remove articles defaming NFL football team owner Daniel Snyder
Delhi High Court directs website to remove articles defaming NFL football team owner Daniel Snyder The Delhi High Court has ordered the website 'meaww.com' to remove defamatory articles from its website as well as the internet entirely as those articles allegedly defamed NFL Football team owner Daniel Snyder. Asingle judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta was hearing the plea and passed an...
ToRead the Full Story, Subscribe to
Access the exclusive LEGAL ERAStories,Editorial and Expert Opinion
Delhi High Court directs website to remove articles defaming NFL football team owner Daniel Snyder
The Delhi High Court has ordered the website 'meaww.com' to remove defamatory articles from its website as well as the internet entirely as those articles allegedly defamed NFL Football team owner Daniel Snyder.
Asingle judge bench of Justice Mukta Gupta was hearing the plea and passed an order in the favour of plaintiff (Daniel Snyder)allowing the interim relief.
Daniel Snyder who is the owner of NFL's Washington Football Team filed the petition seeking prosecution against the website meaww.com that had published defamatory articles against him.
The counsel appearing for the plaintiff submitted before the Court that although the impugned articles have been removed from the website, however, the same are still available over the internet and may be found by a simple search leading to a continuation of defamation.
Snyder's counsel urged the court to issue directions asking the website to release the information with respect to the persons who had uploaded the impugned articles/posts on the platform and disclose the sources from where the information forming part of the impugned articles/posts has been procured by the defendants.
The Plaintiff asserted that he has gained preliminary knowledge that the defendants were acting in collusion and connivance with certain entities that solicit clients on social media by promoting the services of the defendants, and the defendants place stories on their website in exchange for monetary benefits.
It was further claimed that the defendants have therefore adopted the said mode of operation in the instant case, by floating the impugned articles on the internet with a view to malign and tarnish the reputation and image of the Plaintiff across the globe.